What about Betty?

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Don't get me wrong, I love Bettys and Nells, but I hope AE does address the aerial torp problem that currently exists. I personally think it's gamey to have a Betty KB of 3-400 planes moving around the map sinking everything in sight.

If they fix the Betty problem I think we would see a lot more naval battles, as the allies would almost certainly move their surface ships forward

If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.

How can you possibly make those statements with a straight face?

Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

[Mike Solli]

Good point about the 4Es.  Nothing like a 200 plane 4E raid in early 42.  I've seen it. [8|]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Don't get me wrong, I love Bettys and Nells, but I hope AE does address the aerial torp problem that currently exists. I personally think it's gamey to have a Betty KB of 3-400 planes moving around the map sinking everything in sight.

If they fix the Betty problem I think we would see a lot more naval battles, as the allies would almost certainly move their surface ships forward

If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.

How can you possibly make those statements with a straight face?

Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

Not when you see all your CV sunk by a handful of Betties. [;)]

I agree that 4Es should be limited a poster above addressed it nicely as a supply issue.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Don't get me wrong, I love Bettys and Nells, but I hope AE does address the aerial torp problem that currently exists. I personally think it's gamey to have a Betty KB of 3-400 planes moving around the map sinking everything in sight.

If they fix the Betty problem I think we would see a lot more naval battles, as the allies would almost certainly move their surface ships forward

If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.

How can you possibly make those statements with a straight face?

Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

4E problem is pretty much fixed in various mods and house rules... but i don't think the Betty problem has been fixed this way... you can't stop the game engine from loading up torps on naval attack missions. As has been pointed out from time to time, other ship killing abilities of 4E bombers have been completely eliminatated by the game (i.e. - low level radar guided night attacks), so it probably evens out.

All Bettys could use bombs, so to completely eliminate naval strike from the repertoire seems a bit extreme... but i guess it could be done with a house rule.

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005




If they fix the Betty problem I think we would see a lot more naval battles, as the allies would almost certainly move their surface ships forward

If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.

How can you possibly make those statements with a straight face?

Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

4E problem is pretty much fixed in various mods and house rules... but i don't think the Betty problem has been fixed this way... you can't stop the game engine from loading up torps on naval attack missions. As has been pointed out from time to time, other ship killing abilities of 4E bombers have been completely eliminatated by the game (i.e. - low level radar guided night attacks), so it probably evens out.

All Bettys could use bombs, so to completely eliminate naval strike from the repertoire seems a bit extreme... but i guess it could be done with a house rule.

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

Strip torpedoes from Betty,yeah that will make this game a lot balanced[:D]
Maybe programmers should limit speed od japanese ships to,lets say, 20 knots.Or reconstruct them as RO-RO ships and assign them to ferry duties in homeland.
That will make allied job a easier,as it should be[8|]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

That's an amazingly simple solution...brilliant!

[Q-Ball]

AE should fix many many many air problems hopefully (and from what I understand), Betty is just one on this list....

Betty too effective
Oscar not effective enough
4E too effective
Kamikazes not effective enough
UberCap too effective
Too easy to train pilots on map for Japan
Too few pilots in pool for Japan

etc. etc. etc.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: hawker




If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.



Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

4E problem is pretty much fixed in various mods and house rules... but i don't think the Betty problem has been fixed this way... you can't stop the game engine from loading up torps on naval attack missions. As has been pointed out from time to time, other ship killing abilities of 4E bombers have been completely eliminatated by the game (i.e. - low level radar guided night attacks), so it probably evens out.

All Bettys could use bombs, so to completely eliminate naval strike from the repertoire seems a bit extreme... but i guess it could be done with a house rule.

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

Strip torpedoes from Betty,yeah that will make this game a lot balanced[:D]
Maybe programmers should limit speed od japanese ships to,lets say, 20 knots.Or reconstruct them as RO-RO ships and assign them to ferry duties in homeland.
That will make allied job a easier,as it should be[8|]

why should this game be balanced?

[bradfordkay]

CHS has already fixed much of the 4E problem by reducing the number of 4E a/c available to the allied player. You will not get to launch air raids with 300-400 4E bombers in 1942 because you just won't have that many unless you were to concentrate every 4E bomber in the game into one location (and even thenyou'll only have that many in the latter half of '42).
 
 

[thegreatwent]

CHS has already fixed much of the 4E problem by reducing the number of 4E a/c available to the allied player. You will not get to launch air raids with 300-400 4E bombers in 1942 because you just won't have that many unless you were to concentrate every 4E bomber in the game into one location (and even thenyou'll only have that many in the latter half of '42).

Yes, but what about in AE? I anticipate a great deal more planes needing maintenance. If Tony's are disabled I should expect that 4e planes should be touched at least twice as much. just my 2 cents [:'(]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: hawker




If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.



Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

4E problem is pretty much fixed in various mods and house rules... but i don't think the Betty problem has been fixed this way... you can't stop the game engine from loading up torps on naval attack missions. As has been pointed out from time to time, other ship killing abilities of 4E bombers have been completely eliminatated by the game (i.e. - low level radar guided night attacks), so it probably evens out.

All Bettys could use bombs, so to completely eliminate naval strike from the repertoire seems a bit extreme... but i guess it could be done with a house rule.

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

Strip torpedoes from Betty,yeah that will make this game a lot balanced[:D]
Maybe programmers should limit speed od japanese ships to,lets say, 20 knots.Or reconstruct them as RO-RO ships and assign them to ferry duties in homeland.
That will make allied job a easier,as it should be[8|]

i am not advocating stripping torpedoes from Bettys - maybe stripping them from MOST Bettys... [:'(]

Personally, i am one of the "nuts" who would like to see the game reflect what was actually possible to both sides in WW2 (adjusting victory conditions to compensate...)

the conflict between "historical" and "game balance" folks is a long and unresolved one.

[rominet]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005




If they fix the Betty problem I think we would see a lot more naval battles, as the allies would almost certainly move their surface ships forward

If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.

How can you possibly make those statements with a straight face?

Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

4E problem is pretty much fixed in various mods and house rules... but i don't think the Betty problem has been fixed this way... you can't stop the game engine from loading up torps on naval attack missions. As has been pointed out from time to time, other ship killing abilities of 4E bombers have been completely eliminatated by the game (i.e. - low level radar guided night attacks), so it probably evens out.

All Bettys could use bombs, so to completely eliminate naval strike from the repertoire seems a bit extreme... but i guess it could be done with a house rule.

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

I know it is not time to mod WitP any more because of AE, but i was thinking of
a king of solution:
if it would be possible to greatly reduce the normal range of the Betty/Nell (for example to 6 or 7) without changing the historical (extended) radius, that would probably reduce the effectiveness of those bombers to torpedo allied ship.
And destruction of Z force would be possible with torpedoes because of the small distance from Saigon.
I made my own mod of WitP but i am not sure how to disconnect normal range from the extended one.[8|]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: rominet

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: hawker




If Betty "problem" should be fixed,4E problem should be fixed also.



Whats the problem? No one can joke anymore[:D]

4E problem is pretty much fixed in various mods and house rules... but i don't think the Betty problem has been fixed this way... you can't stop the game engine from loading up torps on naval attack missions. As has been pointed out from time to time, other ship killing abilities of 4E bombers have been completely eliminatated by the game (i.e. - low level radar guided night attacks), so it probably evens out.

All Bettys could use bombs, so to completely eliminate naval strike from the repertoire seems a bit extreme... but i guess it could be done with a house rule.

Some people have advocating making a mod where only a special variant of the Betty has torps, but i haven't seen it done yet.

I know it is not time to mod WitP any more because of AE, but i was thinking of
a king of solution:
if it would be possible to greatly reduce the normal range of the Betty/Nell (for example to 6 or 7) without changing the historical (extended) radius, that would probably reduce the effectiveness of those bombers to torpedo allied ship.
And destruction of Z force would be possible with torpedoes because of the small distance from Saigon.
I made my own mod of WitP but i am not sure how to disconnect normal range from the extended one.[8|]

i am not a modder, but i think extended range is defined as 2 x max normal range.

[bradfordkay]

rob, that is most definitely not the case. The B24D in CHS has a normal/extended range of 10/14. Most aircraft have an extended range of slightly less than 50% further than normal range.

[Ken Estes]

Didn't I read correctly that the 'AE' edition is managing mine ordnance to eliminate the 10K mined harbors or something to that effect? I'd say torpedo production would be even easier to do, move around on the map just as we do soldiers. This may strike some as tedious, but logistics determines wars, amateurs just give orders and draw arrows, etc. I suspect that we could introduce down times for squadrons as well, based upon leaving them on mission settings for too long or actually flying missions. Airplanes remain really fragile beasts in the end.
 
How else can WITP live up to its advertised quality of PAcWar on a 'massive' scale? Seriously.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

rob, that is most definitely not the case. The B24D in CHS has a normal/extended range of 10/14. Most aircraft have an extended range of slightly less than 50% further than normal range.

From what I read in the unofficial (and more accurate) manual, extended range is 1/3 of max range, normal range is 1/4 of max range (and transport range is 1/2 of max range - for the sake of completeness). So, subject to the chaotic rounding, extended range is more like 33% further than normal range.

[spence]

i am not advocating stripping torpedoes from Bettys - maybe stripping them from MOST Bettys...

Personally, i am one of the "nuts" who would like to see the game reflect what was actually possible to both sides in WW2 (adjusting victory conditions to compensate...)

the conflict between "historical" and "game balance" folks is a long and unresolved one.

For what it is worth I tried stripping the torpedos from most Bettys/Nells in a mod of the Rising Sun scenario. Made a G4M whose loadout was 3 or 4 x 250 kg bombs and a G4M(T) with a loadout of 1 torpedo in the editor (think I used the G4M1 and G4M2 slots). It didn't work. All of them started flying torpedo missions. There might be some hardcode involved with the slots

Tried the same thing with the Kates on Ryujo (which never flew a torpedo armed mission IRL): B5N with loadout of 1 x 250 kg bomb (and B5N(T) on the KB ships with loadout of 1 torpedo). Same result: the non-torpedo B5N started flying antiship missions with torpedos.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: spence

i am not advocating stripping torpedoes from Bettys - maybe stripping them from MOST Bettys...

Personally, i am one of the "nuts" who would like to see the game reflect what was actually possible to both sides in WW2 (adjusting victory conditions to compensate...)

the conflict between "historical" and "game balance" folks is a long and unresolved one.

For what it is worth I tried stripping the torpedos from most Bettys/Nells in a mod of the Rising Sun scenario. Made a G4M whose loadout was 3 or 4 x 250 kg bombs and a G4M(T) with a loadout of 1 torpedo in the editor (think I used the G4M1 and G4M2 slots). It didn't work. All of them started flying torpedo missions. There might be some hardcode involved with the slots

Tried the same thing with the Kates on Ryujo (which never flew a torpedo armed mission IRL): B5N with loadout of 1 x 250 kg bomb (and B5N(T) on the KB ships with loadout of 1 torpedo). Same result: the non-torpedo B5N started flying antiship missions with torpedos.

hmmm... interesting... i wonder why? Name recognition by the game? Particular slot hardwired? i would guess it is the slot...

[Sheytan]

If specialized support units were required to prep the Betty before launching a torpedo attack why not make just such a unit? IF unit is present, supply req met, AB size met, unit can launch torpedo attack. If support unit is not present, they cant, seems like a simple solution to me, as someone pointed out this is precisely what constrained IJ historically. So once again it becomes a issue of where to deploy those precious resources, IE the torpedo support unit.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

If specialized support units were required to prep the Betty before launching a torpedo attack why not make just such a unit? IF unit is present, supply req met, AB size met, unit can launch torpedo attack. If support unit is not present, they cant, seems like a simple solution to me, as someone pointed out this is precisely what constrained IJ historically. So once again it becomes a issue of where to deploy those precious resources, IE the torpedo support unit.

It would require re-writing the code, could not be done in a mod from what i understand.