Question for Mike Wood regarding 4E and 2E level bomber attacks...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Too true (in the actual war) - not true in WITP!!

Even in late war? Subs not attacking?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Too true (in the actual war) - not true in WITP!!

Even in late war? Subs not attacking?

Haven't gotten that far - just basing numbers of ships sunk at the same point in time vs. what happened in the war. Even against the AI, it looks like most IJN Merchant shipping tonnage is going to be sunk by air.

[Nikademus]

probably, the AI is pretty ruthless with it's merchants despite the air superiority value check.

Im in a PBEM approaching the "Happy time" for US subs. Be interesting to see what kind of damage they do.

[Speedysteve]

Nik,

Who's Donetz? Admiral of Donuts?

Do you mean Doenitz? [;)]

[NemRod]

I doubt you can achieve historical results with a sub campaign. In the game the subs always launch salvoes of torpedoes,after 3 or 4 attacks they must go back to port and reload. Also you rarely see several attacks against the same convoy. Every mission can be rewarded with two or three ships sunk at most when in RL you could achieve much more against lightly escorted convoys.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Nik,

Who's Donetz? Admiral of Donuts?

Do you mean Doenitz? [;)]

Doenitz only came onto the German naval scene because Hitler found a hole in Admiral Donuts's grand strategy for the Reich.

[Speedysteve]

[;)]

I assume Raeder is known as Raider?

[Halsey]

I've come to the conclusion that the reason that 2E and 4E Allied bombers are very effective is this.

The submarine model doesn't represent the actual Allied capability in sinking Japanese merchants. So the Allied bomber mechanics take up the slack in producing tonnage sunk.

Add in the fact that the Japanese merchant tonnage in the game never returns to civilian supply. Like a good portion of it was after Japans initial gains.

So in my book it's a balancing feature. One to offset the poor ability of Allied subs to sink shipping like they really did.[;)]

[pmelheck1]

Let's ban all Allied 2E and 4E bombers! According to folks here 10,000 should just be able to raise a dust cloud over their target. [8|]

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: mullk

Let's ban all Allied 2E and 4E bombers! According to folks here 10,000 should just be able to raise a dust cloud over their target. [8|]

I think the real problem that people have here is that Allied bombers were never used in bunches of more than 50-70 planes (except for the B-29 raids) but in the game, the Allies can get that many 4E bombers going by January or February of 1942.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Little bit of restraining oneself goes long way to make gaming experience lot better. Or mutually agreed house rules if PBEM.

As it's said before ad nauseum, "ahistorical use tends to yield ahistorical results"..[:D]

Aye, but ye AI negotiateth not.

[BlackVoid]

Nikademus, is your mode compatible with the CHS mod? Or included?

IT sounds very good, but I would also like to get the changes in CHS.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: esteban

ORIGINAL: mullk

Let's ban all Allied 2E and 4E bombers! According to folks here 10,000 should just be able to raise a dust cloud over their target. [8|]

I think the real problem that people have here is that Allied bombers were never used in bunches of more than 50-70 planes (except for the B-29 raids) but in the game, the Allies can get that many 4E bombers going by January or February of 1942.

Hi,

the biggest raid against Rabaul was flown by 87 B-24's, 114 B-25's, 14 Beaufighters, and 125 P-38's (just as example for a big Allied raid before the arrival of the B-29; and there were many more big raids), but this was in 1943. Thus you're only partly right with your statement.

But you're certainly right with your statement that such raids were not flown in early 1942 (and maybe even in the whole year 1942). But players tend to use what is available to them. This is the same for both Japanese and Allied players, I've seen (in AAR's) and suffered from (in own PBEM) large Japanese raids involving 350+ Sallies in 1942. I'm quite sure that the Japanese never launched raids involving that many planes (certainly not in 1942, Marianas, Okinawa and other late-war battles were fought under different conditions for both sides). And big Sally raids ostensibly do some damage!

And now, what should be the conclusion from this? Do we have a problem (only) with the efficiency of Allied heavy bombers in this regard? IMHO the problem rather seems to come from the ability of players' to employ very large strikes early in the game. It is simply too easy to concentrate and support large amounts of planes and then launch large air strikes. This ability comes from two features of the game: The abundance of aviation support and the way, airfields are handled (too many planes are able to launch from medium sized airbases, AF sizes 5-7). Somewhat related to this seems to be that flak as a deterrend for raids seems to be underrated in the game.

In short: By further reducing the capabilities of Allied heavy bombers we'll not adress the true problem.

Other problems seem to be the results of port attacks and night-bombing by heavies, but that's a different topic.

K

[Charles2222]

If the player could fly all his groups in the sizes he wished, he might just not fly a large armada, but since the computer wants to mass all daily flights from the same base together he has no choice.