Page 10 of 10
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:24 pm
by Sardaukar
I'm not Ron....[:-][8D].
But yes, you are right in that. Production system could be way better. Some of it can be modded, but not all.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:30 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I'm not Ron....[:-][8D].
But yes, you are right in that. Production system could be way better. Some of it can be modded, but not all.
SORRY. My Altzheimer's must be acting up again.....
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:32 pm
by Sardaukar
Or is it dementia..or...damn..I cannot remember it's name...[:D][:D]. As you see..there is lot of it around...[:)]
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:29 am
by el cid again
This proposal is not related to the way bombs work.
The more bombs you drop, the better the chance of a hit.
The bigger the bomb, the more damage the bomb will do if it hits.
There is a trade off - and in WITP we do not get to make that trade off.
But for example a Ki-48 in RHS (with 10 tiny 50 kg bombs) is better for ground support
than many other planes with fewer bigger bombs.
It also is probably better for attacking AKs.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:12 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: el cid again
This proposal is not related to the way bombs work.
The more bombs you drop, the better the chance of a hit.
The bigger the bomb, the more damage the bomb will do if it hits.
There is a trade off - and in WITP we do not get to make that trade off.
But for example a Ki-48 in RHS (with 10 tiny 50 kg bombs) is better for ground support
than many other planes with fewer bigger bombs.
It also is probably better for attacking AKs.
The lethal area of an explosive munition is proportional to the 2/3rds power of the charge weight, all else being equal. That means ten tiny 50 kg bombs is several times better against unprotected troops than one 500 kg bomb, and is the reason for development of submunitions. The advantage of the 500 kg bomb is against dug-in or fortified positions, where the extra explosive power makes bigger holes.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:23 pm
by Sardaukar
Herwin is right.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:12 pm
by Nicholas Bell
I've mentioned this before and have yet to find time to test it, but what about creating a seperate bomb device for heavy bombers, identical to the regular 500 lb bomb but with reduced accuracy? Dive bombers would of course continue to use the standard device with greater accuracy.
My thought on the G3M/G4M torpedo useage problem is to only give that capability to a couple of units and make the rest of the units carry bombs only (and maybe these too should be limited accuracy devices).
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:45 pm
by Sonny
ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell
.........................
My thought on the G3M/G4M torpedo useage problem is to only give that capability to a couple of units and make the rest of the units carry bombs only (and maybe these too should be limited accuracy devices).
The problem here is that those torpedo armed Bettys are going to attack those two PGs 15 hexes away while the bomb carrying ones will attack the BB force 5 hexes away from your base. Then somebody is going to be very upset.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:54 pm
by Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Zombie thread......
why not you stay dead....
put this puppy to bed.....
I'd rather start new thread.....
Talk about why Terminus no longer dread......
posting mirth instead of lead....
Shame on you... this was good old thread of mine... [8D]
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:50 pm
by Nemo121
And don't forget the old favourite of linking VP to number of engines. Thus a Betty is worth 2 VP, a B17, 4 etc etc.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:58 pm
by dtravel
*muttering* go on vacation too long and people start abusing year and a half old threads *mutter mutter*
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:05 pm
by Sonny
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
And don't forget the old favourite of linking VP to number of engines. Thus a Betty is worth 2 VP, a B17, 4 etc etc.
That would also be an improvement.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:21 pm
by anarchyintheuk
An IJN DD would cost exponentially more than 2-3 B-17s in terms of an investment of national resources, manpower, use of facilities, time of construction, etc. This doesn't include the cost to train the crews and support/administrative personnel.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:52 pm
by Nemo121
Aye, ship VPs should go up as well for both the Allied and Japanese sides. It is difficult to believe that a sub-killing PC was worth no more than 2 x Ki-27 Nates.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:47 pm
by Ron Saueracker
That is why ship crews should be modelled like LCU squads. Call a specific number of crewmen a "factor" and assign these "factors" VPs like squads. These take losses when a ship is damaged or sunk. The value of the ship would go up massively and if these crew factors were drawn from a pool and had to be trained players would take time working up ships prior to sending them into combat. And, with factors, the crew is always being diluted to man new construction and to replace losses so we don't get the ridiculously high crew experience we get in the game (no crew stays together for an entire war!).
But, unfortunately IMO we are stuck with the same basic ship model that came with SSI's (Gary Grigsby) Guadalcanal Campaign and Bomb Alley, which came out basically a quarter of a century ago for the Apple IIe. If you think about it we are repeatedly paying for the same stuff over and over again, just rehashed. I find this a little sad to tell the truth. One would think a little further follow on developmental effort would go into a product before rifling through our wallets.
RE: Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:37 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
That is why ship crews should be modelled like LCU squads. Call a specific number of crewmen a "factor" and assign these "factors" VPs like squads. These take losses when a ship is damaged or sunk. The value of the ship would go up massively and if these crew factors were drawn from a pool and had to be trained players would take time working up ships prior to sending them into combat. And, with factors, the crew is always being diluted to man new construction and to replace losses so we don't get the ridiculously high crew experience we get in the game (no crew stays together for an entire war!).
But, unfortunately IMO we are stuck with the same basic ship model that came with SSI's (Gary Grigsby) Guadalcanal Campaign and Bomb Alley, which came out basically a quarter of a century ago for the Apple IIe. If you think about it we are repeatedly paying for the same stuff over and over again, just rehashed. I find this a little sad to tell the truth. One would think a little further follow on developmental effort would go into a product before rifling through our wallets.
Ron, you are provoking Oleg[;)] again - long time ago he wrote a that "saving/not saving portrait of the emperor from the damaged/sunk ship should be modeled in the game also" or something like this... (btw, suprisingly i agree with him)