B-29 : The fairy princess of 1945

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

The bug fixes and the enhancements are integrated into the patches. You can't choose which you take.

You are 100% right on this. One reason I say time and time again there should be a "toggle" switch on everything in the game. Like the allied coordination rule for example. That way people can customize it as they see fit.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

The bug fixes and the enhancements are integrated into the patches. You can't choose which you take.

You are 100% right on this. One reason I say time and time again there should be a "toggle" switch on everything in the game. Like the allied coordination rule for example. That way people can customize it as they see fit.

That type of thing seems so obvious I can't imagine why it just hasn't been done - would seem an easy way to make evryone comfortable with the game and happy..

B

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

With all due respect, this game isnt a historical representation of anything. Its a game, and any game should be winnable by either side.

As for people that play just against the AI, those are the people that should be screaming the loudest for "play balance". I mean seriously what challenge is this game vs the AI? I have seen post after post the stupid things the AI does in the game. You cant for 1 second tell me that these people are satisified with historical accuracy when the AI plays like it does.

I would hazard a guess that most of these "silent" 80% dont play the game after the first few attempts and quite a few likely have never even patched the game once.

Well, it was damn well sold as an historical representation. And as a game, the way to make it winnable by either side is through victory conditions. That anyone would argue otherwise in a wargaming community speaks volumes to me on what wargaming has become.

I haven't played for well over a year now. I check back now and then hoping that things will be fixed. Doesn't look like it yet but I do plan to give the next official release a fair shot. Like most people, I don't have the time to devote to a PBEM. Also, even if time wasn't an issue, I'd be wary to make a commitment because I wouldn't want to let me partner down by quitting. So I'd be stuck playing a game I didn't enjoy because I keep my commitments.

As long as Matrix keeps making games that cater so much to PBEM players at the expense of AI players, I will continue to be ultra wary with my purchases. I feel I got burned twice with UV & WitP and that's one too many times. If it's just not feasible to make games that can do both PBEM & Solo play well, then seperate versions need to be made. Or at least stop trying to please everyone and make either a great fantasy PBEM game or a great historical AI game.

[jrlans]

Well i am one of those people who primarily play vs. the AI and yes it impailed itself against my defense of burma and yes is only 9/43 and the allies have recaptured both guam and tinian. I still find the game fun.

However i dont buy the argument of play ballance by the time b-29s are in the game if the jappanese havent already won then they know there going to get clobered. B-29s should be able to do what they did historicaly and this is bomb every major japanese city into dust. The way to balance this is reduces the points scored on destroying industry (HI/Oil/RC/MP) so that the allies dont achive auto victory based on bombing alone. (also i think that maybe 20% of the japanese industry should be untouchable to represent the fact that they were moving industry underground)

edit: im prety sure this is hard coded but you could even make it so that the points scored for industry losses start going down in 44 (to give the japanese the opportunity to bomb the US west coast if they wish for increased points, a morale breaker for the americans so to speak)

[Dereck]

Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.

And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.

ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.

The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!

But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.


And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: dereck

Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.

I am not and never was Japanese fanboy.

The easiest thing when without proper argument is to do personal attack like "he is Jap fanboy"... this is sad...

And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.

ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.

What WitP test have you personally _EVER_ done?

When you do that you will have the right to complain - until then...

The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!

But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.

B-29 was a _FAILURE_ as a weapon it was designed to be.

The old 1920's Douhet dream of "Bombers will always get through and win the war" never materialized...

Similarly the US bomber generals though they will have "ultimate pinpoint weapon" with their Norden sight and B-17 / B-24 /B-29 but they were wrong... 99% of time their bombers had to be used in bombing manpower (i.e. cities) to achieve anything...

And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.

Rabaul was attacked many many many times by heavy US bombers and never ever such results (as depicted in my tests) were achieved...


Leo "Apollo11"

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.

And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.

ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.

The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!

But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.


And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.

too sad to be true...not a single argument, you just don't want to see that if something is not right in the game it strike both sides...you don't even want to achive "balanced" play.... ccccc... very sad....

Feinder, very good post (as usual).. but never understand people who want "historical" simulation while they ignoring the fact the main problem is "GAME IS MOVE TOO FAST"...

and for playing vs AI - i have nothing against it, played Civ against AI but I never thinks about complaining that AI "cheats" (and it "cheats").

Unfortunatly, lots of folk here forgeting the truth and only the truth - WiTP is the best game ever!

[ChezDaJez]

The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!

I would have to put a caveat on that statement to read "when used correctly." This applies to any weapons systems.

My take is that there are three parts to bombing accuracy. They are (in no particular order):

1. Altitude, winds and weather.
The higher you fly, the less accurate bombing in general is. And the B-29, by virtue of its ability to fly very high, ran into an unknown phenomenom- the jetstream that greatly decreased its accuracy above 27-30K feet. Lemay determined that the accuracy from these altitudes simply wasn't good enough for the risks involved. That's the primary reason why he chose to change to night tactics using incendiaries at lower altitudes.

Japanese weather records showed that for five years there had never been two successive good visual bombing days over Tokyo, indicating what might be expected over other targets in the home islands. The worst month of the year for visual bombing was believed to be June, after which the weather should improve slightly during July and August and then become worse again during September. Since good bombing conditions would occur rarely, the most intense plans and preparations were necessary in order to secure accurate weather forecasts and to arrange for full utilization of whatever good weather might occur. It was also very desirable to start the raids before September.

2. Bombsight design
This really had very little to do with the actual platform employing it so long as that platform was stable. The Norden bombsight was the most accurate bombsight available to US forces but that doesn't necessarily make it accurate, especially during adverse weather. US bombers over Germany seldom were able to put more than 50% of their bombs within 1000 yards of the aiming point and that's assuming the bomber crews actually determined the true aiming point. The B-17, B-24 and B-29 should have very similar accuracy rates at similar altitudes when using the Norden bombsight. It could be argued that the B-29s higher cruise speed might actually reduce its accuracy. Also consider this.

3. Experience level of the crews using it.
This one's obvious. You have to be familar enough with the system in order to use it effectively. That means training but dropping practice bombs in the desert under optimal conditions isn't going to do much to teach someone how to adjust for less than optimal conditions. So you also need actual combat experience. The more the better.

I, for one, prefer an acurately modeled, HISTORICAL game. Play balance be damned. If the game doesn't model the B-29 to reflect its effectiveness IRL, then it should be changed. We do know that it is way too effective against shipping so that should be reduced. As far as its daytime accuracy, it left a lot to be desired, mostly due to engine problems and the weather over Japan.

Consider this article from this site.

On June 5, the Superforts made their first bombing attack, against the rail yards at Bangkok. Balky engines and bad weather conspired to cripple the mission. Only eighteen bombs hit the target. Not a good start.

Washington continued to pressure General Wolfe, CO of XX Bomber Command, to attack Japan itself by the middle of the month. On the night of June 14-15, ninety-two B-29's took off from staging bases in China, to strike at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata on Kyushu - a vital target that turned out a quarter of Japan's rolled steel. The diminishing number of bombers at each stage of the mission illustrates the problems inherent in Operation Matterhorn:

92 bombers left India.
79 reached the staging bases in China.
75 took off from the bases.
68 left China, the others aborted after take-off.
47 reached the target at Yawata.
15 bombed visually; 32 bombed by radar due to the weather.
One bomb hit the target!

Despite the failure of the raid in material damage, the press hailed it as a great victory; it was the first American bombing raid to hit Japan since the Doolittle Raid in April, 1942.

The Matterhorn raids continued. Eighteen bombers hit Japanes cities on July 7. Two days later, 72 Superforts were launched against a steel plant in Manchuria. More ineffective raids were staged in August.

General Curtis LeMay, only 38 years old, arrived on August 29, to head up XX Bomber Command. A cigar-chomping tough guy, LeMay shook things up. He increased training and mission frequency; he re-organized the flights into 12-plane boxes; he introduced the 'lead bomber' concept; and he re-organized the Bomb Groups. Raids continued through the fall, hampered by supply problems and more effective Japanese air defenses. By the end of 1944, 147 Superfortresses had been lost to enemy guns and to accidents. Operation Matterhorn wasn't working and it was phased out.

In the summer of 1944, the Marianas were secured and airfields were quickly built. XXI Bomber Command was organized for the Marianas B-29 operations. After the planes were brought in, the crews trained, and some preliminary raids, 111 Superforts bombed the Nakajima Aircraft Company's Musashi engine plant near Tokyo on November 20, 1944. Largely ineffective raids continued against the Musashi plant and the Mitsubishi engine plant at Nagoya through the end of the year.

Once again the Joint Chiefs called in Curtis LeMay to take over. He had analyzed the Japanese economy and focused on its dependence on small cottage industries spread throughout the large cities. Since the previous afforts at high-level precision, daylight bombing of specific targets had failed, LeMay instead proposed to burn out the Japanese cities entirely, destroying the critical industries (and the civilian population) in the process. (Not exactly the way we wage war now, where every errant bomb that hits an Afghan camel must be accounted for.)

LeMay developed a radically different approach. First, the bombers would carry incendiary, rather than high explosive, bombs. To save fuel and maximize the bomb load, the guns were stripped out, the Superforts would fly at 5,000 (instead of 30,000) feet, and each plane would fly directly to the target (no more circling and joining up in formation). These allowed each Superfort to carry about seven tons of M69 incendiary bombs. Lastly, they would go at night, since precision was no longer required and because Japanese night fighter forces were not very good.

The results were devastating. On the night of March 9-10, 279 B-29's bombed Tokyo. A huge firestorm resulted, sixteen square miles of Tokyo were reduced to ashes and 84,000 Japanese were killed. In the next week, similar, but less destructive, results were obtained in Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe. Only twenty B-29s were lost.

So incendiaries, 5000ft altitude and single-file formations were able to achieve the effects that high altitude, iron bombs and massed formations could not.

So, Derek, Sounds to me like you are getting the results that were historically achieved by high altitude, massed B-29 formations. Why don't you try it at night at 5000 feet?

Chez

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.

And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.

ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.

The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!

But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.


And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.

Please see my 2nd note in this thread for official and complete historical evidence backing up dereck's comments...........
BTW.....Revisionists all die and go to hell..........[:D]

[Cpt.Buckmaster]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Cpt.Buckmaster

ORIGINAL: dereck

Yeah because people - mostly Jap fanboys - griped and complained until the allied were nerfed even more.

Matrix, you HAD a good game but after listening to all these Jap fan boys all you've done is turned this game into a one-sided fantasy game.

Well, you might just be onto something there, smartypants ( [;)] )... but with good reason.

Any way you realistically slice it, the general outcome of the war was inevitable. Yamamoto knew this. The USN and the USAAF would become invincible (relatively speaking, of course) and it would only become a matter of ground combat to determine just how long the war would last (Atom bombs aside).

SO, put yourself in the shoes of a "Japanese Fanboy." Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a CHANCE to win? Things need to be adjusted in order for that to be possible. The whole 4-engined bomber thing is just one of the dozens (or hundreds if you ask some of the people around here! [:D] ) of things about this game that are completely historically inaccurate.

In real life, the Axis powers got completely pasted. Their cute little suckerpunch uncontested victories in 1939-1941 europe and the pacific were fun for them and all, but in the end their hemisphere-wide empires were systematically destroyed in a two or three year period.

SO, in order to make ANY WWII games fun for the "bad guys", there has to be a bunch of cheating... unless you design one that takes place in like Sept 1942 only.

[:)]

No Lieutenant, it ISN'T a good reason. You Jap fan-boys cry and complain all the time about HISTORICAL accuracy down to how many sheets of toilet paper the marines need to wipe their butts on Guadalcanal but whenever this historical accuracy would even come close to being of benefit to the allied player -- or even BEING historical -- you all circle your wagons, cry fould and shout down all the opposing views.

I'd just like to state, for the record, that I'm actually an ALLIED fanboy...

...just one who's trying to understand the challenge of designing a game* where the two players each have a good chance to win!

*I say "game", because if this was an attempt at 100% historical accuracy it would claim to be a "simulator" and there'd be no PBEM.

Hell, I like heavy bombers as much as the next guy! I'm just trying to keep an open mind! [:)]

[Big B]

A fresh thought on the thorny question of The Fairy Princess:

If B-29's are being neutered in bombing efficiancy and susceptibility to fighers and flak - could this be restored by going to the editor and simply increasing bomb payload and durability?[8|]

B

[esteban]

Sure, unescorted bombers can take heavy losses, but consider the rewards you get from the raids:

-Reduce Japanese production.

-Force the Japanese player to commit lots of planes to home defense.

And especially, victory points. You get two victory points for every DAMAGED resource/oil/HI point or manufacturing point of ANY type.

If you add up all these HI/oil/resources/manufacturing/manpower/repair yards in Japan, you probably get about 20000 or more "points" of various types of production centers.

If the Allied player can damage half of these (and if he uses manpower attacks he can actually destroy them for even more points) thats 20,000 victory points right there.

Are you saying that the Americans might lose 20000 B-29s raiding Japan?

The way things were until a couple patches ago, all you had to do was get B-29s in range of Japan, and it was a practically inevitable autovictory for the Allies.

[Richard III]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

SO, put yourself in the shoes of a "Japanese Fanboy." Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a CHANCE to win? Things need to be adjusted in order for that to be possible.

Here are some "Victory Conditions" for a Japanese player in a WW II simulation:

- They reach May 1942 at or better than the historic achievements - a draw

- They reach January 1, 1943 at or better than the historical situation - a marginal victory

- They reach January 1, 1944 at or better than the historical situation - a clear victory

- They reach January 1, 1945 at or better than the historical situation - a decisive victory

- They reach August 14, 1945 at or better than the historical situation, and no atomic bombs have been dropped - a total victory

An Allied player likewise has to improve upon the historical situation or he loses on the same dates.

By "...at or better than the historical situation", I mean that the Japanese player has the same or better territorial situation and has the same or more forces, including ships, planes and troops, as the historical situation.

Thus, the "better" the Japanese player plays - taking more territory, losing fewer forces, etc. - the better the chance for a victory.

This alleviates the need to put ahistorical restrictions or enhancements on the forces of both sides.

It's too bad that the victory conditions for this game weren't designed in such a manner.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Why can`t the Victory Conditions be changed to these ?

It would eliminate the need to dumb down the Game by ahistorical " fixs " ( less work for Mike ) therefore making everyone happy.

Variable Victory conditions have been a feature of every one of Gary`s Games since WIR.....and all other recent War Games from other publishers.


Joel, Mike, Dave how about addressing this guys ???????????

[BlackVoid]

It is not possible to create a perfect simulation. You have to live with it, that there are and will be things that are not 100% accurate. So what? ITS a game. And a simulation as well. It would be nice to improve some things, but if you are so bothered:
1. research the subject before posting
2. test it in the game

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Big B

A fresh thought on the thorny question of The Fairy Princess:

If B-29's are being neutered in bombing efficiancy and susceptibility to fighers and flak - could this be restored by going to the editor and simply increasing bomb payload and durability?[8|]

B

Thanks to people who gripped and complained about PBEM security there ISN'T a way to edit a game in progress even if that game is only against the AI

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

So, Derek, Sounds to me like you are getting the results that were historically achieved by high altitude, massed B-29 formations. Why don't you try it at night at 5000 feet?

Chez

Wrong Chez because I'm NOT bombing from high altitude. I'm bombing from 8,000 to 10,000 feet and have to deal with having 3/4ths of my bombers resting while only 1/4 bombs because of the fatigue that is caused as it is.

[Feinder]

BigB,

Yes, that wold work, for NEW solo-games vs. the AI.

However, derek has been playing this same game from 12-07-41, and it is now in 1945. In order for a change to the database to take effect (as you are suggesting), he would have to restart. Considering his game has been going for almost 2 years, I'm thinking "restart" isn't rated very high on the solution list (*smile*). The frustration comes from a situation that has been "enhanced to death"; his game has been severely warped over the course of the last few patches, to the point where it is becoming less playable (altho I don't think anyone has a game that has been running as long as Derek's).

-F-