Hordes of Tonys

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

The game really doesn't model the differential effects of cannon vs. mgs against fighters/bombers - i.e. - in real life, the MG seemed to be highly effective against fighters, not so great against bombers.

Another major difference was the amount of ammo carried cannon vs mg. The earlt Hurricane only had 10 seconds of ammo. How many enemy planes can you knock down with 10 seconds of fire? If you are a REALLY good shot, maybe 3. How is this modeled in witp? It isnt. Airplane ammo isnt counted. A hurricane driver could with very good rolls get 10 kills or more against a large raid. Guess that would be killing one of the higher flying planes and watching one crash into another and another ect on the way down [:D]

[jwilkerson]

We had several massive threads about this topic probably back in May 05 ...

At that point I was playing Japanese and was reporting shooting down dozens ( 50+ ) 4EB with intercept groups of about 40-70 Tonys ( and some Zeros ) ... this resulted in a slight change to bomber return fire in 1.6

First, in stock ( which is what I was playing at the time - with no PDU ) the Japanese can put about 4 Tony groups on the front by around Oct 42 ( total 144 Tony's ) ... however these are unlikely to have exp much higher than the 60s. They can devestate large(100+) 4EB strikes .. but they are much less efffective against smaller ( under 50 ) 4EB strikes ...

Again, Tony's with moderate to poor ( 50-69 ) exp can devastate large 4EB strikes. But against enemy fighters ( Spitfires with 80+ exp for example ) these very same fighters will fall in droves.

Essentially I had a one month window where I was able to shut down the 4EB ... then the P38s showed up and have changed the game. Now P38s rule the skies with 100s of P38s overflying my bases and clearing the skies. Even the Shoki ( Tojo ) is powerless against the P38 if the P38 exp is 80+ and the Tojo/Tony are 65-75 ... exp is paramount ... much more so than the plane.

So the allied players should insure they know which airgroups upgrade to P38 ( a number of P39s do ) .. and do all they can to train these groups up in readiness for the P38s .. in stock ... I think the Allies get 100 P38s per month ... enough to clean the clocks of hundreds of Tony's and Tojos .. .all based on exp.

Even if the Japanese player chooses to use PDU ... he still faces the supreme bottleneck of training up his pilots ... so the allies need to make sure they train up their own fighter pilots and use the P38s to start attriting any decent ( 80+ ) Japanese fighter pilots .. so the race becomes allies training up from 50+ start versus Japanese training up from 25+ exp start ... only one victory possible in that race.


BTW the 1942 Tony in stock is more powerful ( gun factor 14 ) than the 1942 Tony in CHS ( gun factor 12 ), not the other way around.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

The game really doesn't model the differential effects of cannon vs. mgs against fighters/bombers - i.e. - in real life, the MG seemed to be highly effective against fighters, not so great against bombers.

Another major difference was the amount of ammo carried cannon vs mg. The earlt Hurricane only had 10 seconds of ammo. How many enemy planes can you knock down with 10 seconds of fire? If you are a REALLY good shot, maybe 3. How is this modeled in witp? It isnt. Airplane ammo isnt counted. A hurricane driver could with very good rolls get 10 kills or more against a large raid. Guess that would be killing one of the higher flying planes and watching one crash into another and another ect on the way down [:D]

I agree the effects of ammo carried isn't well modelled in this game - nor is the "home base advantage" - i.e. - fighters defending a base or aircraft carrier (or base complex, as a large base is usually a set of airfields) could and did rearm after using up their ammo. Also, pilots that were wounded/exhausted could be replaced by other pilots (depending on the number of available pilots, etc.)

Of course, there are SCADS of stuff more poorly modelled in the game. I don't think one should get worked up over the relatively minor stuff and demanding revisions, when there are major portions of the model that are, let's say, not working realistically.

[Yamato hugger]

Heh, GGs air combat routines have run this way since the early Apple days with Guadalcanal Campaign. Ive learned to live with it. Just pointing out the fact that you cant compaire cannon vs mg results in this game because the game doesnt take ammo into consideration.

Which is in an of itself a joke really. They keep track of ship mg ammo, ect but overlook this. Probably just as well really. Anotehr way to introduce a bug into the system [;)]

[mc3744]

It's good to hear Tonies are not so devastating after all [:)]

[Mike Scholl]

What's really annoying about all these threads is the "chosing up sides" nature of the posts. It would be really refreshing to see a dozen posts in a row saying to 2by3 "fix the damned replacement rate of B-17's...it's way to high vs. historical reality!" And "fix the stupid Tony's as well---they're arriving months too early and in far to great numbers vs. history!" Instead we get a constant string
of posts bitchin' about one side and defending the other. The production numbers and delivery of all these aircraft are available after 60 years, but 2by3 seems to have ignored most of the data and made up the numbers out of thin air as often as not. Now that's something it would be nice to see EVERYONE yelling about!

[Feinder]

I'm finally starting my first game (as Allies) with variable upgrades, so maybe what have to add doesn't count for much (that's never stopped me before!).

The Tony is very short-legged (even by Allied standards). They're great at point defense. But it seems to me that, if your opponent is producing the h_ll out of Tonys, what's he escorting his bombers with? If he's already in defense mode, take your time, you're winning. If he's slaughtering your bombers, don't feed his exp ratings.

Those Tonys aren't going anywhere (litterally). If you need to wait to either build up your P-38s for sweeps, or for better fighters, or whatever it takes, just bide your time. Concentrate on intercepting his fighters/bombers that actually show up over YOUR bases. He's got to be escorting his bombers with SOMETHING, because they certainly aren't Tonys. A dead Betty/Zero pilot is just a good as a dead Tony pilot.

Also, use the old "bombard the crap out 'em" tactic if you can. Pilots killed on the ground, and just as dead.

The airframe becomes irrelevant if the exp is only in the 40s. You job is kill Japanese pilots, in the most efficient way you can (without creating better Japanese pilots in the process). Take your time.

-F-

[Gen.Hoepner]

Yes, with all those p-39 upgrading to P-38s, with the Marine wildcats upgrading to Uber-Corsairs...with the new box-defensive-tactic of the level bombers, with the 4Es night bombing capabilities.....there's really no worry for the allies to lose the air-war. the tonies will fall like flies as soon as your p-38s will come into action

[Nikademus]

With the 4E situation at night, is this will very large numbers?

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

With the 4E situation at night, is this will very large numbers?

I do not know how many cause when i play allies i never night bomb. However i can tell you that since March 42 in on of pbem as Japan, i've experienced each single night an average of 100/200 4Es over my airfields, losing an average of 15/25 planes on the ground each night, while with 2Es bombers nightbombing the Airfields is less than useless. Very very few 4Es get ops losses and even less are hit by flak. If you consider that with 20/25 planes each night you also lose some 1,2 or 3 pilots in this process , it's easy to understand what is the result: the 4Es crews encrease easily their experience, while Japan in the long run faces the inability to hold it's advanced AF ( costant loss of pilots and planes).

I've lost due to the night bombing 800 planes in 4 months ( 1942)....

[Nikademus]

Hmmm...was afraid of that. I did test the 4E's after the patch that scaled back night effectiveness using small and medium numbers but didn't have time to try an "uber" test raid of around 100 or so. I was afraid the exponential effect would still make night bombing too viable a tactic. My own experiences with 2E's has been mostly impotent as desired.

Looks like a house rule for 4E's and the darkness will still be needed. Been playing all my PBEM's with it anyway but had wondered.

[DDLAfan]

Hi, I am the “esteemed opponent” elxaime is referring to. I am willing to play a pure historical version of WITP, but only if EVERY aspect of that game is modeled as such. Sure, I will build the oscar’s instead of tony’s, but only if I don’t see 200x liberator airstrikes from India or Port Moresby (as some of you have said didn’t occur), or the entire American submarine arm devoted to mining my harbours in 1942 because they don’t come into their own until 1943 (sub option is on), or killer ASW groups, which my subs never seem to escape from, decimating my sub force.

And as far as keeping a dutch base alive in the rear as a training ground for pilots, some people might consider that gamey. However, since it has been previously stated in other threads that the jap pilot training program might not be modeled accurrately, why should I stick to “training” my groups in Japan when I can get them up faster in exp in safely strafing this base. Especially (again, already mentioned in other threads) if the air loss program is also not modeled accurately. I’ve lost several hundred planes in a two or three day period when those huge liberator strikes come in…

Bottom line, this is a SIMULATION, and not a historical recreation of the pacific war. Plus, I am playing a side that has virtually no chance for victory in this game. I’m going to do what I can to win, just as my opponent is and has been doing.

Thanks and have a nice day!

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: DDLAfan

And as far as keeping a dutch base alive in the rear as a training ground for pilots, some people might consider that gamey.

Anyone that would consider it gamey has no clue of history. Allies did it on the "by-passed islands" all along. Why shouldnt the Jap be allowed to do it? If both sides are restricted to doing only what their real-life counter-parts did, then why play at all? Pick up a book and read it.

I was a paratrooper in the army. The mission of the airborne (in ALL armies) is to secure bridges and block retreats. I drop troopers on bases to the rear to do just that, block retreats. Trying to delay down the Malaya Pen usually results in Singapore falling in mid-Jan 42 against me. I catch a lot of people trying to hold Lingayan Gulf by blocking their retreat to Clark field. A lot of people consider that gamey. Why? That is their mission, and has been from the begining of airborne time. Just because RL commanders didnt understand the capibility of the troops under their command, doesnt mean that they shouldnt be allowed to use tactics that were entirely viable.

Edit:
As for rear area training academies, personally I use Bataan. I dont bother assulting it, Manilia isnt that important until '44 anyway. Clark Field starts at level 8. It makes a great air force training academy.

[BlackVoid]

Yes, the allies started to achieve air superiority in late 1942. But the main reason for that, was the japanese overextension plan.
In early 1942, Japan started 3 (!!!!) operations at almost the same time: Aleutians, Midway + Port Moresby. They divided themselves between 3 targets and only won the least important one (Aleutians).
Then, after the landing at Guadalcanal, they continuosly underestimated the enemy and launched piecemeal attacks that attritioned their navy and their air force in an OFFENSIVE battle, that they could have won if they commit everything they have.
Human players are unlikely to make this many blunders in the game - hence japanese advantage is not over until 1943.

[ChezDaJez]

Looks like a house rule for 4E's and the darkness will still be needed. Been playing all my PBEM's with it anyway but had wondered.

Nik, that's one rule I definitely play with. The Allies can night bomb but cannot use more than one BG per target and no more than 2 targets on any night. However, all rules are off when night bombing of Japan proper begins.

So far my opponent has only used night bombing a few times and without great effect. His bombers are much more effective during the day as he can fly as many as he wants against a target.

Chez

[Speedysteve]

Hi Chez,

Thats one house rule i've always agreed upon in my PBEMs. I always say no night bombing except city and naval attacks.

I'm sorry but the results i've tested extensively myself and seen in AAR's leads me to say night bombing of aifields and ports are still too effetive.

Regards,

Steven

[WiTP_Dude]

Another uber Allied 4E attack from a range of 10-hex:

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
A6M3a Zero x 29

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 14
B-24D Liberator x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 damaged
A6M3a Zero: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y Liberator: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed, 23 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 10, on fire
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 10, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet

[ChezDaJez]

I'm sorry but the results i've tested extensively myself and seen in AAR's leads me to say night bombing of aifields and ports are still too effetive.

Hi Steven,

From what I've seen, 1.6 did tone it down enough to where our house rule of only 1 bomber group per target provides a fairly realistic result. I think the best my opponent achieved was 5 runway hits and 1-2 aircraft destroyed on the ground for 3 or 4 bombers damaged by flak during a night attack. He figured out fairly quickly that he got much better results during the day with larger groups for only a few more damaged aircraft and 1-2 losses (much to my chagrin!). Plus those heavies shoot down my fighters at a fairly decent rate during the day. (And now he is escorting them!!!)

During my game with TJ under v1.5, night bombing was absolutely deadly and TJ milked it to the max by sending 150-200 bombers over Rabaul at night. He would achieve 100 runway hits and 20-30 destroyed aircraft each time. It was one of the main reasons why that game ended.

Just saw WitP_Dude's combat report. Ouch, that is a bit overboard. Luckily I haven't been on the receiving end of a B-17 or B-24 naval strike.

Chez

[elxaime]

Hehe - just so everyone knows my Japanese esteemed opponent is my RL brother!

I am not claiming any "gamey tactics" are being used. I am only asking whether the designers are accurately modelling aircraft production rates. I guess the answer is yes, within the parameters of the optional rules. I agreed to all these rules ahead of time, so no worries there.

I guess I am just itching to go on the attack! This game takes a huge amount of time with daily turns. The first time we played I lost by mid-1942 through over-aggressive US carrier tactics. But for the rematch I learned some lessons, one of which is patience is the Allied virtue. But sometimes this feels like asking for the patience of Mother Theresa!

This is off-topic, but for my part I admit to using the mass Allied sub mining technique - sank about ten Jap ships, which is about ten more than the timid Allied subs would have otherwise. I have kept Allied ASW hunter-killer groups to six ships or less, and this seems to work well enough. Have only done a few night bombing raids, since it seems the damage is better in daylight (except for the Wellingtons which drop like flies).

Hirohito's doom is certain. I didn't mean to imply I was losing. I was just wondering about the timeframe.

[elxaime]

ORIGINAL: Honda

There is[:D]

Care to share the intelligence? What is this Japanese super-fighter? Is it one of those cigar-shaped things with a rocket engine that flies straight up?