Night bombing, gamey tactics and "officialness"

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

Tristanjohn, what is gamey for you isn't necessary gamey for other players. English weren't popular as well in India. do you really think that if english sent everything they had in India on Burma, India would have continued to be UK colony/ally?

England and India had problems, sure. When you think on it, everywhere the English went over the years they were basically kicked out of in time. What's so surprising about that? But in WWII England and India shared something much more important: a common enemy.

My post wasn't meant to start a discussion about night bombing (which IS bugged, as it is scheduled to be toned down in 1.5 and so officially seen as not working as designed).

It's "officially" seen as not working right? Boy, there's a load off my shoulders. Now I can rest easy, yes? Because Matrix has "officially" decided to "tone it down" some more?

Tell you what. You get back to me the day Matrix gets anything right with this game, then we'll talk some more.

I just say that BEFORE accusing another player to be "gamey" AT LEAST everyone should think how he plays first.
Since you are not an example of a "fair" player as you use your own bag of gamey tactics to bypass game mechanics (1 ship TF) or exploit a known weakness of the game (night bombing) launching 100 bombers from PM at night every day and also beeing proud of it, i wouldn't expect you to jump in an AAR thread saying one of the players is dumb/gamey (which is also unfair and unpolite).

I use what I use for two reasons: 1) it's there to use, and 2) I want to know exactly how this system behaves. As I discover the most serious flaws in the game system I duly report these in the forum for everyone to chew on. For those here without real game teeth less luck, but at least they have the opportunity, so to speak.

And I'll tell you something else. I'm not always right, or even nearly always right. I do, however, give reasons, and quite often good solid reasons, for why I think and do the things I think and do. I also bother to do hard research before coming to my conclusions, an old habit of mine, which is a helluva lot more than you could say for most of the people around here, and light year ahead of what seems to have driven the development team, because I have to tell, so much of what's in this game comes from so far out there . . . someplace . . . it isn't funny.

PS: Night bombing isn't screwed if you send a single squadron from time to time bombing a base as happened in RL. it is if you send 100 bombers from PM. Cause their accuracy are way higher, operational losses minimal, AA reaction a joke. So yes, using 100 bombers in PM isn't smart nor fair. its just a no-brainer gamey tactic.

Until enough raids have been run it's impossible to say where the night-bombing mechanics fall in terms of results. I've had 70-plus bomber raids with B-17s achieve laughable hit rates (six or seven or eight hits on the airfield, with no enemy plane casualties), while at other times a similarly-sized attack force will achieve almost as many runway hits as bombers in the raid. The model isn't close to consistent, not within any clear set of parameters that I understand, at least. What it's doing in there I don't know, but if I fool around with it long enough maybe I will come to know. If I ever do come to know I'll be sure to let you know immediately. Meanwhile, I can do without idle speculation. That's perfectly useless. If you have concrete examples, present them here. I'll be glad to listen to that.

As for AA: it is anything but a joke. The one fixed point in the air model which I can identify is that AA provides very good point defense all the time, perhaps too good, but I'm not sure about that. My PBEM opponent stocked Rabaul full of AA not too long ago and it tore my B-17s up right and proper the very next time they flew in there. It still gives me trouble even at night, though it's nowhere near as powerful then as it is during daylight hours, which is about what we'd expect. Isn't it? But a joke it is not.

Again, if you've a cogent point to make re AA, cite specific examples from play. I've heard none from you so far.

[ChezDaJez]

Until enough raids have been run it's impossible to say where the night-bombing mechanics fall in terms of results. I've had 70-plus bomber raids with B-17s achieve laughable hit rates (six or seven or eight hits on the airfield, with no enemy plane casualties), while at other times a similarly-sized attack force will achieve almost as many runway hits as bombers in the raid. The model isn't close to consistent, not within any clear set of parameters that I understand, at least.

Actually, Tris, I think the night bombing results haven't been too far off what I would expect from real life. I would expect a wide range of results. If you factor in the difficulties of navigating at night, the bombers are bound to miss most of the field every now and then. Also, they flew a very loose formation at night IRL with each individual bombadiers toggling their bombs which tends to spread the bombs over a much wider area. Then again, sometimes they do get it right and blow the hell out of the place.

But when comparing night bombing in our game to what night bombing achieved in Europe during the same time frame, I would have to say that the effectiveness overall of night bombing in WitP is a little on the high side. In Europe, they made considerable use of pathfinders and radio beacons to navigate by. And they were bombing cities because they couldn't achieve the precision required to hit individual targets. You don't have that option in the Pacific, either in the game or IRL. Each navigator basically had to find his own way to the target because of the extreme risk of mid-air collision trying to fly formation at night. The RAF sent their bombers in long streams of aircraft.

One part of night bombing that definitely needs fixing is the ops losses. I've been following how many you've lost during these night raids. You seldom lose more than 1 a day to ops losses. I tend to lose 5-10 aircraft to ops losses during the day. Night time should be higher.

Another is weather effects at night. It seems to me that weather is not factored in during night missions. I could be wrong here but I can't recall seeing any of your night bombers failing to locate the target no matter what the weather. Yet at Koepang, I've seen several of your raids fail to locate the target due to weather during the day against Koepand and other places.

Another is that aircraft seem to be bomb magnets. That is the number of destroyed aircraft outweigh the actual damage done to the runway or airfield services. Its almost as though small parafrag bombs are being used. I would thnk the number of damaged/destroyed aircraft should be determined by the amount of damage done, especially to airfield services, when using GP bombs.

Anyways, just my opinion.

Chez

[kaiser73]

Regarding the thread, you are free to play as you wish. as i am. as long as your opponent is fine with that, no problem.
you use cause it is there to use. fine for me, as long as your opponent thinks the same. however, then don't go in other AAR and call player dumbs/gamey. when you do worse in your own matches. that is my only point.

If you don't see as gamey using 70 LB from PM on night bombing in mid '42? please find me an example in RL . i personally never heard of. did you?

Regarding Night bombing, your own AAR:

1st Night Bombing
Used: 18 B17
Losses: 0 losses (3 damaged)
Kills: 1 APD, 1 MSW, 1 APD, 40 men, 6 points on runway, 3 fighters

2nd Night Bombing:
Used: ?
Losses: o losses (8 damaged)
Kills: 240 men, 4 guns, runway 14, Air supply 3, Airbase 4

3rd Night Bombing
Used: 28
Losses: 2 losses (10 damaged)
Kills: 177 men, 5 guns, runway 10, Airbase 5

4th Night Bombing
Used: 12
Losses: 0 losses (3 damaged)
Kills: 3 zeros

5th Night Bombing
Used: 45
Losses: 0 losses (2damaged)
Kills: 281 men, 5 zeros, runway 19, supply hits 4, airbase 7

6th Night Bombing
used: 40
Losses: 0 (4 damaged)
Kills: 555 men, 16 guns [X(], airbase hits 3, supply 2, runway 29

7th Night Bombing
used: 47
Losses: 2 (11 damaged)
Kills: 121 men, 1 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 2, runway 8

8th Night Bombing
used: 41
Losses: 2 (5 damaged)
Kills: 225 men, 8 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 2, runway 8

9th Night Bombing
used: 39
Losses: 0 (1 damaged)
Kills: 33 men, 1 gun, 4 fighters

10th Night Bombing
used: 38
Losses: 0 (3 damaged)
Kills: 100 men, 1 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 1, runway 18, 26 aircrafts [X(]

11 Night Bombing
used: 53
Losses: 0 (1 damaged)
Kills: nothing

12 Night bombing
used: 48
losses 2 (damaged 11)
kills: 486 men, 9 guns, runway 27

13 Night bombing
used: 66
losses 2 (damaged 9)
kills: 5 men, 10 aircrafts killed

14 night bmbing:
used: 64
losses: 0 (10 damaged)
kills: 564 men, 18 guns [X(]

Total Stats:
Used: 569
Losses:10 (1,75%)
Kills: 50 aircrafts, 2700 men

These results are made in '42, bombing mostly a super AA base (according to your opponent).
if you see nothing wrong with that then there is nothing to discuss about. i fail to see the super AA in these results you talking about. 1.75% losses...a joke.

[Ron Saueracker]

Night bombing as is is gamey...period. Too many flaws and bugs.

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Night bombing as is is gamey...period. Too many flaws and bugs.

Agree 100%. I do not use it when playing as allies. Too easy to drive out an entire enemy air division from an AF in range of 2E and 4E allied bombers

[Titanwarrior89]

Some say it's gamey some don't. I leave it too the other player if he has a problem with it. [:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Until enough raids have been run it's impossible to say where the night-bombing mechanics fall in terms of results. I've had 70-plus bomber raids with B-17s achieve laughable hit rates (six or seven or eight hits on the airfield, with no enemy plane casualties), while at other times a similarly-sized attack force will achieve almost as many runway hits as bombers in the raid. The model isn't close to consistent, not within any clear set of parameters that I understand, at least.

Actually, Tris, I think the night bombing results haven't been too far off what I would expect from real life. I would expect a wide range of results. If you factor in the difficulties of navigating at night, the bombers are bound to miss most of the field every now and then. Also, they flew a very loose formation at night IRL with each individual bombadiers toggling their bombs which tends to spread the bombs over a much wider area. Then again, sometimes they do get it right and blow the hell out of the place.

But when comparing night bombing in our game to what night bombing achieved in Europe during the same time frame, I would have to say that the effectiveness overall of night bombing in WitP is a little on the high side. In Europe, they made considerable use of pathfinders and radio beacons to navigate by. And they were bombing cities because they couldn't achieve the precision required to hit individual targets. You don't have that option in the Pacific, either in the game or IRL. Each navigator basically had to find his own way to the target because of the extreme risk of mid-air collision trying to fly formation at night. The RAF sent their bombers in long streams of aircraft.

I don't know. There's food for thought in what you say. I want to look at it some more.

One part of night bombing that definitely needs fixing is the ops losses. I've been following how many you've lost during these night raids. You seldom lose more than 1 a day to ops losses. I tend to lose 5-10 aircraft to ops losses during the day. Night time should be higher.

Operational losses should undoubtedly be higher across the board. I would expect (but I do not know) that Japanese losses might be higher still than the Allies, if only because the Allies without exception (except maybe in the home islands) enjoyed far superior runways to use. Plus, Allied planes were built sturdier than their Japanese counterparts. I assume pilot experience is built into that model, so, if it's working right and was designed right (two big ifs) we could let that part of the equation take care of itself as the game wound on.

But again, all this is only a guess on my part (re who ought to be breaking down where and when) as we simply don't have any decent Japanese records to go by, with few enough personal accounts after the fact.

Another is weather effects at night. It seems to me that weather is not factored in during night missions. I could be wrong here but I can't recall seeing any of your night bombers failing to locate the target no matter what the weather. Yet at Koepang, I've seen several of your raids fail to locate the target due to weather during the day against Koepand and other places.

They fail to find the target all the time. You might be missing that as you've got animations toggled off, that, or you're just not looking for it. I pay close attention each and every combat phase for those details. Trust me, the Allies are forever missing their targets. (In fact just two or three turns ago two separate flights of B-17s failed to find Rabaul.)

Weather, however, is definitely broken in general when it comes to the air model. I've posted how many times now over in the support forum? re aircraft conducting offensive missions into cloud hexes. Happens all the time, but apparently nobody at Matrix gives a hoot. They'd rather add new "features," I guess. (Maybe someone over there could dream up an Allied Bomber Doctrine toggle this next time around. Now that's something we could surely use.)

I will say that I don't seem to see any direct correlation between bad weather in a zone and missed flights/increased operational damage during bombing missions. Perhaps that's what you're getting at.

Another is that aircraft seem to be bomb magnets. That is the number of destroyed aircraft outweigh the actual damage done to the runway or airfield services. Its almost as though small parafrag bombs are being used. I would thnk the number of damaged/destroyed aircraft should be determined by the amount of damage done, especially to airfield services, when using GP bombs.

I totally agree with this. Which kind of gets back to my remark above re the lack of clear model parameters which I, at least, can discern. Hell, I can't even figure out what Gary seemed to want it to do on a regular basis, so there you go.

Frag bomblets, by the way, are not modeled as far as I know, but ought to be.

[Feinder]

Gaminess begets gaminess.

If you do something gamey, it is reasonable to expect a response in kind.

If your opponent does something gamey, then by all means, drop a roll of quarters in the gloves.

-F-

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

Regarding the thread, you are free to play as you wish. as i am. as long as your opponent is fine with that, no problem.
you use cause it is there to use. fine for me, as long as your opponent thinks the same. however, then don't go in other AAR and call player dumbs/gamey. when you do worse in your own matches. that is my only point.

If you don't see as gamey using 70 LB from PM on night bombing in mid '42? please find me an example in RL . i personally never heard of. did you?

Regarding Night bombing, your own AAR:

1st Night Bombing
Used: 18 B17
Losses: 0 losses (3 damaged)
Kills: 1 APD, 1 MSW, 1 APD, 40 men, 6 points on runway, 3 fighters

2nd Night Bombing:
Used: ?
Losses: o losses (8 damaged)
Kills: 240 men, 4 guns, runway 14, Air supply 3, Airbase 4

3rd Night Bombing
Used: 28
Losses: 2 losses (10 damaged)
Kills: 177 men, 5 guns, runway 10, Airbase 5

4th Night Bombing
Used: 12
Losses: 0 losses (3 damaged)
Kills: 3 zeros

5th Night Bombing
Used: 45
Losses: 0 losses (2damaged)
Kills: 281 men, 5 zeros, runway 19, supply hits 4, airbase 7

6th Night Bombing
used: 40
Losses: 0 (4 damaged)
Kills: 555 men, 16 guns [X(], airbase hits 3, supply 2, runway 29

7th Night Bombing
used: 47
Losses: 2 (11 damaged)
Kills: 121 men, 1 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 2, runway 8

8th Night Bombing
used: 41
Losses: 2 (5 damaged)
Kills: 225 men, 8 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 2, runway 8

9th Night Bombing
used: 39
Losses: 0 (1 damaged)
Kills: 33 men, 1 gun, 4 fighters

10th Night Bombing
used: 38
Losses: 0 (3 damaged)
Kills: 100 men, 1 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 1, runway 18, 26 aircrafts [X(]

11 Night Bombing
used: 53
Losses: 0 (1 damaged)
Kills: nothing

12 Night bombing
used: 48
losses 2 (damaged 11)
kills: 486 men, 9 guns, runway 27

13 Night bombing
used: 66
losses 2 (damaged 9)
kills: 5 men, 10 aircrafts killed

14 night bmbing:
used: 64
losses: 0 (10 damaged)
kills: 564 men, 18 guns [X(]

Total Stats:
Used: 569
Losses:10 (1,75%)
Kills: 50 aircrafts, 2700 men

These results are made in '42, bombing mostly a super AA base (according to your opponent).
if you see nothing wrong with that then there is nothing to discuss about. i fail to see the super AA in these results you talking about. 1.75% losses...a joke.

Exactly where are these results off? If you can't tell me that, specifically and with good historical documentation, you've got no case.

As for the assets I use: there are plenty of B-17s in theater for me to use so I use them. What would you have me do, not use them? If George Kenney had had these bombers he'd have used them for sure, and probably to better effect than I've been able to achieve. I want to see if the model works. So I use what I've got and put that model through its paces. "Winning" the game is of no importance to me. I doubt you could say the same.

As for the statistics you've quoted above: that's all bullshit. It's less than meaningless. You have no idea what losses I've actually incurred, or what the stand-down times are for my squadrons after they return from these missions. Same same for the situation over on the Japanese side of the board. You actually know nothing. So you're just essentially beating your gums.

The "joke" is that Matrix actually listens to players of your ilk. You never know what you're talking about, you never bother to do a dime's worth of research, you don't put in two-cents worth of thought on this stuff before going into one of these rants, you just hold forth in the forum in round numbers and cause the developers to break down amid the noise you make and add new "features" and willy-nilly "tweak" others until "you people," who haven't a clue, stop whining about . . . all the things in the game system you don't understand and couldn't understand to begin with.

So there. You keep coming at me with this foolishness and that's what you get. The bitter truth. I'm sorry I had to say it. Now please go away and play the game the way you wish to play it. I really don't care. I'm only here to try and make the game better. There's plenty to do in that regard, and from what I've seen you just can't help me.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Gaminess begets gaminess.

If you do something gamey, it is reasonable to expect a response in kind.

If your opponent does something gamey, then by all means, drop a roll of quarters in the gloves.

-F-

You miss the point, too. The entire game system is gamey when it all boils down. It's gamey because it was designed so poorly and you can't walk two feet without committing yet another gamey act no matter what style of play you choose. What I'd like to do is fix some of the more glaring errors in the system to where it might be possible to get through a session without so much gamey play. But that won't be possible unless we know not only what's broken but how best to make it, if not exactly fixed, then certainly better. The only way to achieve that good goal, that I'm aware of, is to play the game in its entirety in the form Gary gave it to us in, take many careful notes, then think about it . . . more than a minute or two . . . and then finally come back and tell Matrix this, that and the other is broken, so will you please fix it? and this is how.

If you have a better method let me know.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Night bombing as is is gamey...period. Too many flaws and bugs.

You need to be more specific, too. "Too many flaws and bugs" says nothing of value.

[Feinder]

Yes, there are "glaring" errors. But the hard truth is that, v1.5 is going to be the last patch for a while. There will likely be a v1.6, but it's going to be a -long- while. For those less observant among us, WitP isn't the high priority for dev time. Which means all of these "glaring errors" are now pretty much "features" of the game.

Do I like it that Japan can sack China, India, Oz, NZ, or PH? Nope. None of those were even -remotely- possible.

Do I like the fact that the Allies can obliterate any Japanese AF by moon-light? Nope.

Do I like the fact that the Japanese player forced to put 9 year olds in his Zeros after December 8th, 1941? Nope.

Do I like the fact that the Allies are constrained to historical deployments and upgrades, when the Japanese player can move/upgrade his units months ahead of what was historically possible? Nope.

But you know what? Things balance out.

I play "a gentlemen's game" with my opponents. I'm quite well aware of what is, and is not possible. I can exploit the system as well as anyone. But perhaps I've just happen to find 5 other players who don't insist on taking advantage of every potential exploit. But either way, my go at it is, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander." Both sides have some trump cards to play. I'll agree that is unfortunate that that there -are- even trump cards, but the simple truth is, they exist. While we might not like it, they're not likely to be fully addressed any time soon.

So we're back to calling them "features".

If I don't see 24 IJA Divs lined up against Chungking, I promise not not sic 350 B-17s on Rabaul at night. Neither one of those is realistic. And just because we -can- do something, doesn't mean we should. If an opponent resorts to taking advantage of an unrealist portrayal in game, then I have no problem taking advantage where my resources allow it.

At this point, there isn't much to be done about "ahistorical characterics" or cababilities or damage models or whatever. The engine very much is, the way it's going to be (barring a few tweaks). So in the end,

Gaminess begets Gaminess.

It really is, as simple as that.

-F-

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Night bombing as is is gamey...period. Too many flaws and bugs.

You need to be more specific, too. "Too many flaws and bugs" says nothing of value.

Been said many times in detail in other threads. I've been told I repeatedly bitch so I'm taking a break.[>:]

[Ron Saueracker]

Yes, there are "glaring" errors. But the hard truth is that, v1.5 is going to be the last patch for a while. There will likely be a v1.6, but it's going to be a -long- while. For those less observant among us, WitP isn't the high priority for dev time. Which means all of these "glaring errors" are now pretty much "features" of the game

This is the thing which irks me. Large, unfinished product being given same or less real dev time than other much smaller games. Half arsed if this is what ends up happening.

[forranger]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yes, there are "glaring" errors. But the hard truth is that, v1.5 is going to be the last patch for a while. There will likely be a v1.6, but it's going to be a -long- while. For those less observant among us, WitP isn't the high priority for dev time. Which means all of these "glaring errors" are now pretty much "features" of the game

This is the thing which irks me. Large, unfinished product being given same or less real dev time than other much smaller games. Half arsed if this is what ends up happening.

It is obvious that WitP was released unfinished, and let's face it: we won't live to see it finished. But no one of us has encountered another war game of such ambitious dimensions. I'm still amazed at the database detail and the thrill each combat phase can deal out. Something this huge simply could not be delivered without flaws. I'm amazed too that some guys here have expressed vehement criticism for months but are still hanging around and playing it. It's clearly a case of hate-love. If we are honest we have a raw jewel on our harddrives which is more than playable (even more so after patch 1.5).

I for myself resigned to the fact that I'll have to live with most of the design weaknesses of this game, but if we stick to pbem opponents who match our personal style of playing (total war - meaning full exploits - versus gentlemen's guidelines which probably allow more fun and longer games......) most if not all of us could get the most out of WitP. I wholly agree with FEINDER that bad things balance out. In real life both sides got nasty surprises, so if we get a dose of these in our games let's try to consider it as a challenge we have to deal with personally and not via design change demands (which won't be covered - or only minimally covered - by official sources anyway).

My big hope is that they get land and air combat right in "War in Russia", and that we'll get WitP II sooner or later. The current version of WitP has huge potential and even if the same engine won't be used anymore (as announced) I bet there will be a successor!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: forranger

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yes, there are "glaring" errors. But the hard truth is that, v1.5 is going to be the last patch for a while. There will likely be a v1.6, but it's going to be a -long- while. For those less observant among us, WitP isn't the high priority for dev time. Which means all of these "glaring errors" are now pretty much "features" of the game

This is the thing which irks me. Large, unfinished product being given same or less real dev time than other much smaller games. Half arsed if this is what ends up happening.

It is obvious that WitP was released unfinished, and let's face it: we won't live to see it finished. But no one of us has encountered another war game of such ambitious dimensions. I'm still amazed at the database detail and the thrill each combat phase can deal out. Something this huge simply could not be delivered without flaws. I'm amazed too that some guys here have expressed vehement criticism for months but are still hanging around and playing it. It's clearly a case of hate-love. If we are honest we have a raw jewel on our harddrives which is more than playable (even more so after patch 1.5).

I for myself resigned to the fact that I'll have to live with most of the design weaknesses of this game, but if we stick to pbem opponents who match our personal style of playing (total war - meaning full exploits - versus gentlemen's guidelines which probably allow more fun and longer games......) most if not all of us could get the most out of WitP. I wholly agree with FEINDER that bad things balance out. In real life both sides got nasty surprises, so if we get a dose of these in our games let's try to consider it as a challenge we have to deal with personally and not via design change demands (which won't be covered - or only minimally covered - by official sources anyway).

My big hope is that they get land and air combat right in "War in Russia", and that we'll get WitP II sooner or later. The current version of WitP has huge potential and even if the same engine won't be used anymore (as announced) I bet there will be a successor!

I'm surprised we got this much. If you suppose Gary's doing another one of these, and with a new engine to boot, you're dreaming! [:D] This was a one-off. End of the line.

Now he's going to make Second Front for the third time. That'll be it for that, too. He's not getting any younger, you know, and neither are we.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


The "joke" is that Matrix actually listens to players of your ilk. You never know what you're talking about, you never bother to do a dime's worth of research, you don't put in two-cents worth of thought on this stuff before going into one of these rants, you just hold forth in the forum in round numbers and cause the developers to break down amid the noise you make and add new "features" and willy-nilly "tweak" others until "you people," who haven't a clue, stop whining about . . . all the things in the game system you don't understand and couldn't understand to begin with.

So there. You keep coming at me with this foolishness and that's what you get. The bitter truth. I'm sorry I had to say it. Now please go away and play the game the way you wish to play it. I really don't care. I'm only here to try and make the game better. There's plenty to do in that regard, and from what I've seen you just can't help me.

Well, you provoke me again. And, again, i will tell you: your words tell's much more about your character. Your arrogant conversation reminds me of one person well known on this forum - i do not even mention his name.

I find kaiser73 as a person who gave me some good thoughts, from you i get only "screaming about japanese conspiracy in the WiTP". Sure, didn't you know that Gary Grigsby is actualy Sakanoku Tokabu? eh?

You asking for documented examples, when you get it you keep saying it is foolishness. So I doubt that any data will change your arrogant attitude.

You are great fighter for historical settings. I'm bit suprised that you never complain about to many B-17 in the game....

Personally, I always play WiTP like a game, so i don't have problems if my esteemed opponents use night bombings. They have B-17's with big capacity, Japanese have laughable bombers with pathetic load. So, ok, use your advantage....

But, what happens with a game? Just imagine that 95% of allied bombing mission are night bombing? historical? do you need a data?

Again, i have no problem with this strategy (it is a game), but you totally miss kaiser's point.
here it is again (just in case)
"Regarding the thread, you are free to play as you wish. as i am. as long as your opponent is fine with that, no problem.
you use cause it is there to use. fine for me, as long as your opponent thinks the same. however, then don't go in other AAR and call player dumbs/gamey. when you do worse in your own matches. that is my only point".

and i'm with him.

servus.

[forranger]

If the current WitP crew won't do an improved successor version someone else will, I have no doubts about that. PC power keeps growing, along with that the capability to deal with more complex code and larger databases. So let's dream on!

As for Gary: I have no idea how old he is, but I bet he's gonna design games right until they close his coffin...... Besides I smell parallels to Tom Clancy: I guess not everything that is published with his name on it includes substantial participation of his side. The programming, research and test guys are probably more important than those delivering a more or less detailed concept and rule-set.

[mogami]

Hi, OK it is alright to say what you think is wrong with the game but please lets refrain from posting what we think is wrong with one another. Keep it polite.

[kaiser73]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

Regarding the thread, you are free to play as you wish. as i am. as long as your opponent is fine with that, no problem.
you use cause it is there to use. fine for me, as long as your opponent thinks the same. however, then don't go in other AAR and call player dumbs/gamey. when you do worse in your own matches. that is my only point.

If you don't see as gamey using 70 LB from PM on night bombing in mid '42? please find me an example in RL . i personally never heard of. did you?

Regarding Night bombing, your own AAR:

1st Night Bombing
Used: 18 B17
Losses: 0 losses (3 damaged)
Kills: 1 APD, 1 MSW, 1 APD, 40 men, 6 points on runway, 3 fighters

2nd Night Bombing:
Used: ?
Losses: o losses (8 damaged)
Kills: 240 men, 4 guns, runway 14, Air supply 3, Airbase 4

3rd Night Bombing
Used: 28
Losses: 2 losses (10 damaged)
Kills: 177 men, 5 guns, runway 10, Airbase 5

4th Night Bombing
Used: 12
Losses: 0 losses (3 damaged)
Kills: 3 zeros

5th Night Bombing
Used: 45
Losses: 0 losses (2damaged)
Kills: 281 men, 5 zeros, runway 19, supply hits 4, airbase 7

6th Night Bombing
used: 40
Losses: 0 (4 damaged)
Kills: 555 men, 16 guns [X(], airbase hits 3, supply 2, runway 29

7th Night Bombing
used: 47
Losses: 2 (11 damaged)
Kills: 121 men, 1 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 2, runway 8

8th Night Bombing
used: 41
Losses: 2 (5 damaged)
Kills: 225 men, 8 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 2, runway 8

9th Night Bombing
used: 39
Losses: 0 (1 damaged)
Kills: 33 men, 1 gun, 4 fighters

10th Night Bombing
used: 38
Losses: 0 (3 damaged)
Kills: 100 men, 1 guns , airbase hits 2, supply 1, runway 18, 26 aircrafts [X(]

11 Night Bombing
used: 53
Losses: 0 (1 damaged)
Kills: nothing

12 Night bombing
used: 48
losses 2 (damaged 11)
kills: 486 men, 9 guns, runway 27

13 Night bombing
used: 66
losses 2 (damaged 9)
kills: 5 men, 10 aircrafts killed

14 night bmbing:
used: 64
losses: 0 (10 damaged)
kills: 564 men, 18 guns [X(]

Total Stats:
Used: 569
Losses:10 (1,75%)
Kills: 50 aircrafts, 2700 men

These results are made in '42, bombing mostly a super AA base (according to your opponent).
if you see nothing wrong with that then there is nothing to discuss about. i fail to see the super AA in these results you talking about. 1.75% losses...a joke.

Exactly where are these results off? If you can't tell me that, specifically and with good historical documentation, you've got no case.

As for the assets I use: there are plenty of B-17s in theater for me to use so I use them. What would you have me do, not use them? If George Kenney had had these bombers he'd have used them for sure, and probably to better effect than I've been able to achieve. I want to see if the model works. So I use what I've got and put that model through its paces. "Winning" the game is of no importance to me. I doubt you could say the same.

As for the statistics you've quoted above: that's all bullshit. It's less than meaningless. You have no idea what losses I've actually incurred, or what the stand-down times are for my squadrons after they return from these missions. Same same for the situation over on the Japanese side of the board. You actually know nothing. So you're just essentially beating your gums.

The "joke" is that Matrix actually listens to players of your ilk. You never know what you're talking about, you never bother to do a dime's worth of research, you don't put in two-cents worth of thought on this stuff before going into one of these rants, you just hold forth in the forum in round numbers and cause the developers to break down amid the noise you make and add new "features" and willy-nilly "tweak" others until "you people," who haven't a clue, stop whining about . . . all the things in the game system you don't understand and couldn't understand to begin with.

So there. You keep coming at me with this foolishness and that's what you get. The bitter truth. I'm sorry I had to say it. Now please go away and play the game the way you wish to play it. I really don't care. I'm only here to try and make the game better. There's plenty to do in that regard, and from what I've seen you just can't help me.

Thanks for the polite answer. [;)]

Just do a test: put 100 aircrafts in an airfield lvl4. Put in that airfield lot of AA. then bomb it at night with your 70 night bombing raid. See how many you can kill. See how many you lose.
Accuracy in killing aircrafts on field is very high. period. it brings the result that japan player is forced to move all aircrafts out of b-17 range. is it fun? is it historical? is it smart ? (since you called another player dumb to use a tactic far less gamey than this)

Just answer me these questions:
when Allied used 50-70 night bombing raids from PM ?
do you think it is historical that Japan has to base out of B-17 range any aircraft?

Lastly: i don't tell you how to play. as long as you agreed with your opponent, you can play how you want.

However, given the fact you exploit weakness of the game in your own PBEMs, you should at least be honest enough to not jump in AAR threads of other people telling how much they are dumb/gamey. That is my point.

The fact there is something in the game doesn't mean you need to use it. Don't know about you, but when i play i look for an historical match, a good opponent and a good challenge. I don't find fun using unhistorical unrealistic 100 b-17 bombing night raids in early '42. it takes no skill nor drawbacks. and it weaken Japan far more than happened in RL.

Just as i don't go after Russia when i play Japan.

your problem is that you play ONLY one side so you are unable to have an unbiased view. this game has some flaws. they are evenly split between the 2 sides. as long as they aren't fixed, it's up to players to use or not. Pesonally i look for a good game. a game where Allies can oblitarate any air asset based on airfield in range of b-17 isn't fun.