4E bombers,greatest bug of all

[hawker]

Hawker, can you connect A6M vs B-17 with the ME 262 vs 4E bomber? I'm still at a loss how this matters.

Also, do you agree even at its best the B-17 was never "obliberated." Yes, no?

worr,
no i cant connect this two aircrafts.
On your second question,allies 4E suffer big losses above Germany,but not really obliterated.
Japanese aircrafts cant match Germans (like Focke-Wulf,ME-109K)

Berkut,
Pzkw IV auf G is more than enough for Sherman[;)]

[Berkut]

The PzIVG can be penetrated by the M4(76) without any trouble at moderate ranges and any facing. It is no better than a later model Sherman in any appreciable fashion.

The M4A2(76) has better armor than the PzIVG, and as good a gun. It is faster, and consderably more reliable.

What exactly about the PzIVG makes it "more than enough" for Shermans?

[Berkut]

Worr, my point about the math is that my refutation of your 10% per sortie loss rate had nothing to do with the 9th AAF. My point is that the math refutes your basic claim, it simply does not add up.

A 10% per sortie loss rate comes out to a 90%+ overall loss rate for aircrews over 25 missions, not the *overall* casulty rate of ~12%.

*Per mission* loss rates for the 8th Air Force could not havebeen more than a couple percent. And the website I linked to was primarily about Bomber Command, but the references they used were straight from the US Air Force historical record, you can link to it and see the actual scanned post war data that refutes the 10%/sortie loss rate explicitly.

You are confusing OVERALL rates with per sortie rates.

Which returns us to my very first point - a 10% per sortie loss rate was NOT sustainable, and in fact suffering considerably less than 10% per mission in October caused the 8th to change their target selection drastically. Heck, you don't ahve to refer to anything other than simple math to figure that out. No amount of references in the world, or books, or opinions can change the basic math involved.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Japanese AAA stunk! Even in 1945, LeMay found he could fly his B-29's over Japanese cities at altitudes that would have been suicidal over Germany (6-8,000 feet) because Japanese AAA was no real threat.

Yes, you are right. i haven't got data about japanese AAA in the japanese cities in 1945 but i suppose that AAA wasn't present in significant numbers...

Anyway, i'm talking about game. it is possible to mass AA units (5, 6, 7....) but results are still pathetic. Do you really think that jap. AAA would be inoffensive (?) in such cases?

[hawker]

Berkut,
I think that you mistake PzkwIV aug G for its earlier models.
The truth is that this tank is most reliable tank of WW2[;)].
Even gen. Guderian insist on producing these tanks and not the Panther tanks.

[Yamato hugger]

<sounds of touch tones>

<sound of telephone ringing>

Voice: Hello, FBI.

YH: Hello. I'd like to report a thread hijacking.

Voice: Uh. What?

[SGT Swanson]

Tell them it was a thread highjacking by a terrorist. They'll go crazy then.[:D][:D]

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Berkut,
I think that you mistake PzkwIV aug G for its earlier models.
The truth is that this tank is most reliable tank of WW2[;)].
Even gen. Guderian insist on producing these tanks and not the Panther tanks.

No, I am not mistaking it for its earlier models.

Again, what about the PzIVG made it so much better than a M4(76)?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Well...it depends on how the allied player plays...55 fortress over Ambonia in late 43 isn't that much!
I'm experiencing, since mid-42 Hordes of 300/400 and more 4Es on 2 different theatres ( Burma and SOPAC)each day

_____________________________

I would have to agree with u on this, at least early war. All the US warplanes suffered form low availability die to insuficient maintenance or none at all. Unfortuantly not modeled in game.

[Feinder]

Gen Hop,

Are you using Player Defined Upgrades?

If not, it's not possible to have 400 4e bombers in a stack. I can tell you there are exactly 288 B-17s available in July of '42. And that's if you somehow manage to get them all in a stack and fly on the same mission. You could add 48 more LB-30s (there is one group of them).

If you're using PDUs, yes, I suppose you could get that many (might be tough tho, considering the B-17 rate was halved, but with extra squadrons to LB-30s, you might be able to pull it off with PDU.

-F-

[ChezDaJez]

If not, it's not possible to have 400 4e bombers in a stack. I can tell you there are exactly 288 B-17s available in July of '42. And that's if you somehow manage to get them all in a stack and fly on the same mission. You could add 48 more LB-30s (there is one group of them).

Stock Scenario 15 version 1.6:

Just based on a replacement rate of 25 per month and a production rate of 50 a month, that would yield 600 B-17s available as of 31 July 42. This does not include any B-17 groups that start the war on the map.

B-24s begin arriving on 1 June 42 at the rate of 25 replacements and 100 production units a month yields 250 B-24s available by the end of July, not counting any units that appear as reinforcements.

That makes a total of 850 heavy bombers available to US forces by the end of July 42 so it is very possible to have 400 4E bombers attacking and this doesn't include any LB-30s if PDU is ON.

Otherwise, with PDU off, there are only 288 heavy bomber slots avaliable, as you said, among on-map 4E units.

In my game against the AI (PDU off- 6/27/42), the US has filled every HB slot available and there are 331 B-17 and 83 B-24s in the pool ready for assignment.

Allied fanboys should be screaming to play with PDU On and Japanese fanboys with it OFF!

Chez

[Gen.Hoepner]

Gen Hop,

Are you using Player Defined Upgrades?

Yes we are.

Plus we're playing with the old replacement rates...so 75 b-17Es/month and so on.

However even with the halved replacement rates, its very possible to get 800-1000 4Es by the end of summer 42...that means that you can have 400 for Burma and 400 for something like Darwin or NG...whatever.
We may argue that it was possible,not possible, historical or not....what really matters, IMHO, is that these numbers completely SCREW up the balance of the game.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Stock Scenario 15 version 1.6:

Just based on a replacement rate of 25 per month and a production rate of 50 a month, that would yield 600 B-17s available as of 31 July 42. This does not include any B-17 groups that start the war on the map.

B-24s begin arriving on 1 June 42 at the rate of 25 replacements and 100 production units a month yields 250 B-24s available by the end of July, not counting any units that appear as reinforcements.

That makes a total of 850 heavy bombers available to US forces by the end of July 42 so it is very possible to have 400 4E bombers attacking and this doesn't include any LB-30s if PDU is ON.

Otherwise, with PDU off, there are only 288 heavy bomber slots avaliable, as you said, among on-map 4E units.

In my game against the AI (PDU off- 6/27/42), the US has filled every HB slot available and there are 331 B-17 and 83 B-24s in the pool ready for assignment.

Allied fanboys should be screaming to play with PDU On and Japanese fanboys with it OFF!

Chez

Yes, exactly.[:'(]

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

If not, it's not possible to have 400 4e bombers in a stack. I can tell you there are exactly 288 B-17s available in July of '42. And that's if you somehow manage to get them all in a stack and fly on the same mission. You could add 48 more LB-30s (there is one group of them).

Stock Scenario 15 version 1.6:

Just based on a replacement rate of 25 per month and a production rate of 50 a month, that would yield 600 B-17s available as of 31 July 42. This does not include any B-17 groups that start the war on the map.

B-24s begin arriving on 1 June 42 at the rate of 25 replacements and 100 production units a month yields 250 B-24s available by the end of July, not counting any units that appear as reinforcements.

That makes a total of 850 heavy bombers available to US forces by the end of July 42 so it is very possible to have 400 4E bombers attacking and this doesn't include any LB-30s if PDU is ON.

Otherwise, with PDU off, there are only 288 heavy bomber slots avaliable, as you said, among on-map 4E units.

In my game against the AI (PDU off- 6/27/42), the US has filled every HB slot available and there are 331 B-17 and 83 B-24s in the pool ready for assignment.

Allied fanboys should be screaming to play with PDU On and Japanese fanboys with it OFF!

Chez

The replacement/production rates for the 17 are 10/30 in version 1.6.
To give a different view of situations in a non-PDU environment:
December 1, 1942
All Heavy Bomber formations are basically filled up 288 17's and 144 24's currently.
I ceased using the LB30 upon the arrival of the 24D.
There are 306 17's in the pool and 543 24's.
There have been 165 17's lost 94 A2A, 6 flak, 12 ground, 53 operational
There have been 77 24's lost 47 A2A, 6 flak, 0 ground, 24 operational
Obviously, I don't run at a high operational tempo right now, but we hope to change that.
Furthermore, as soon as the 24J comes online, all 17 groups will transition to them as become numerous enough. I know that's just my way of doing things, but I just wanted to show something different.

[ChezDaJez]

The replacement/production rates for the 17 are 10/30 in version 1.6.

Oops, you are right. I had loaded up an old AI game to check on replacement rates and forgot that it hadn't been upgraded to v1.6.

Jees, now what am I going to bitch about...... I know! The damage model!!![:D]

Chez

[invernomuto]

We may argue that it was possible,not possible, historical or not....what really matters, IMHO, is that these numbers completely SCREW up the balance of the game.

Right.
IMHO PDU are a nice feature. They give to both players more strategic options. The problem is in game balance. If - as it seems to happen - PDU unbalance the game, we have two options:
1) Leave PDU off.
2) Try to find an acceptable solution without screwing balance in games with PDU off.

If as japanese I have to face 400 4E bombers raid in late 42, than my next game will be with PDUs OFF and CHS mod. Allied should be unstoppable in 44, not at the beginning of the game.

[AmiralLaurent]

A simple home rule or game change would be to not allow PDU between medium/light and heavy bombers, so to keep the Allied number of heavy bombers at a reasonable rate.

As for game balance, Japanese naval bombers may be toned a bit by having them flying with torpedoes only if a naval Air HQ is in their base.

But I think the game in faulty as a simulation of bombing attack. Most efficient bombing attacks in the Pacific were flown on the deck and medium bombers were just better than B-17 for that. High altitude bombing vs earth runways or troops hiding in jungle or warships was not as efficient as in the game.

A faulty feature is also the fact that both players know without recon with enemy bases have ships and AC. And the color of the symbol indicates the number of AC/ships... And the Allied player is seeing this after the Japanese player moved his air units. I have never understood why the game displayed such information without recon, while it will hide the presence of troops in enemy bases. Without this it would be possible for Japanese AC to come close of Allied heavy bomber bases. With it it is either suicide or quick fly in and raid the other day and bug out with high FAT.

[Ron Saueracker]

Hmmm. I have a question. What aspects of the game do people think are spot on and don't need massive corrections as a result of extensive play over the last year? Need to start somewhere.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hmmm. I have a question. What aspects of the game do people think are spot on and don't need massive corrections as a result of extensive play over the last year? Need to start somewhere.

this game is spot on with regard to....errr....ummm....the music? [8|]

[jwilkerson]

Hmmm. I have a question. What aspects of the game do people think are spot on and don't need massive corrections as a result of extensive play over the last year? Need to start somewhere.

Paraphrasing quote from movie "Apollo 13" when flight director has been given the list of all the things on the space ship that are broken.


"Ok people - how about telling what we have that is working on the spacecraft - what systems are good !"


Note that almost anything could use greater than zero improvement - but to your standard of some things that do not need "massive" corrections ... and note that we have extensive play results for many systems going back about 4 years to UV day 1 not just last 16 months since WITP release.

(1) Air search for TFs mostly works ... probably too well ... but you can set searches and they find TFs and they also fail to find TFs ... maybe not to perfect percentages .. but they are in the ball park ... now as to Air search versus subs .. that is a different matter as we know ...

(2) Air strike orders ... well we've been complaining about inability to target specific TFs since UV day 1 ... but most of us have at least adjusted to the way the system works ... it is far from perfect .. but we can launch air strikes against things and sometimes we will hit what we want and sometimes not ... again percentage breakdown isn't perfect .. but things happen and things do not happen and that part is correct.

(3) Air Transport ... we can move things by air transport. Yes, every now and then we have the disappearing unit problem ... but I've only had that happen 2 times in 2400 PBEM turns .. and I soldier on ... unfair things happen in real wars too.

(4) Air Transfers ... we can move planes between bases ... and we pay a penalty .. not a high enough one ... but at least greater than zero ... that isn't wrong.

(5) Pilot/Crew quality ... at least it is modeled .. and we have inexperienced pilots .. and they can't do much except die until we train them ... then they can do more ... so this part is good .. it could be better ... I spend 80% of every turn micromanging pilot training .. I'd like to see this changed .. I wanna spend more time on supply !

(5) Naval Movement ... we can move ships across the map from (A) to (B) ... and they get there ( most of the time ) ... they use fuel ... and they suffer some incidental damage. Those things are good. They could be better. But many of us have worked out ways to move without tripping over the lack of waypoints. But it has been this way since UV day 1 ... and we have finally adjusted.

(6) Naval Combat ... I hesitate to put this one in ... but Naval Battles happen .. and ships sink and ammo is expended .. and ships are damaged. And big powerful fleets usually beat weak unpowerful ones ... there are many many areas that need work in here .. but there is a basic system in place. And it produces results that are at least usually recognizable ( note absence of air combat in the above air section ).

(7) Naval Logistics ... ships use fuel .. and they get damaged and they need repairs and they need upgrades ... these things are good. Cargo capacities need work but they exist ... loading and unloading needs work but you can load and you can unload and there are some limits.

(8) Ground Logistics ... units use supply ... maybe not enough sometimes ... but they do use supply. Units need rest and recovery time after big exertions ... this is good.

(9) Ground combat ... in what I'd call "normal" battles ( base hexes ) ... the results are at least recognizable .. the larger force usually captures the base eventually, especially if better supplied. There are problems, artillery isn't recognizable ( I was in the artillery ) ... and non-base hex combat isn't recognizable ... but that is why I started talking about base-hex combat.

(10) Production ... the Japanese production system exists .. it allows reprioritization between air and naval assets. It requires regular massive deliveries of resources and oil .. this is very good !!! It shows us that without massive imports of raw materials, the Japanese production machine cannot function. Now are there problems too - of course, management of Japanese production is very convoluted ... we need a "production management screen" ... but constraints do exist. The Japanese cannot accelerate all the ships and build double their historical aircraft at the same time. Not in this game.

(11) FOW ... Fog of War exists in the game ... you can hide your major assets a bit ... especially the carriers ... this is good ... determining how strong enemy ground opposition is before a landing is pretty tough ... the numbers we see can be very wrong .. and can be meaningless ... this is very good !!! Could it be improved ? Absolutely but again we have a basic system in place that conceals information from us. That is good.

(12) AI ... I know the AI gets a lot of bad press .. but I'm not sure we often stop and think about all things it is doing for us !!! It moves the supply on the land for us. Now we don't always agree with what it is doing ... but we aren't going to complain about the 999 times out of 1000 where we do agree !!! For example in China ... I redeploy some troops and some airplanes .. and my bases go orange for a few turns .. but then the AI figures out where I am .. and corrects the situation ... that is great ... it would take me another hour per turn probably to set up the truck and wagon convoys and define the train routes and load the supply on the trains and the wagons and the trucks and give them orders and then unload them when they arrive etc. etc. the AI is working hard for us .. most of the time ( not always ) in this area. Same for the oil and resources ... we would have to load up trains in the home islands, in China, in SEA to move these resources points around every turn .. if it wasn't for the AI. Note, I want to be able to get involved in supply movement ... but I am pointing out that now the AI is working hard for us in this area.

Well ... there is an even dozen ... so fire away ... I'm sure I picked 12 things that at least someone thinks are the most broke in the whole game [:D]