Is 4e night bombing gamey?

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hawker, why is it gamey?

I don't see it as being something the Americans didn't do on a smaller scale ( small-scale night bomber raids certainly did happen ) and it CERTAINLY isn't something they couldn't have done ( the Americans could easily have used the B-17s and B-24s as night-bombers with the appropriate support and a doctrinal switch ).

If the Japanese can keep KB together in a manner that the real-war Japanese didn't and can mass their fighters and bombers in a manner the real-life Japanese didn't then I don't see any problem at all when the Allies do the same to them ( using weapons in a manner which was possible but non-doctrinal during the war ).

Sorry but I just don't get the "it's gamey" argument. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.( but then again I don't really restrict PTs or four-engined bomber attacks on naval targets either ).

It is gamey, night bombing with 300+ 4E night after night,day after day for months.
It is not gamey,it is super "gamey" in 1942

That scale of attacks was highly unlikely in 1942 with or without doctrine.

Crew fatigue- hm hm
Aircraft mainteance- funny
Level ### AF- Who needs that

Massive attacks of 4E bombers against ships at 6000 or less feets and their precise hits is,hmmmmmm,very silly if they dont have laser guided bombs or something like that. Why use Dauntless when you have 4E dive bombers with better hit percentage[8|]

On the other hand,japanese player can also be "gamey" and mass hundreds of toni and tojos in late 1942.
Also,i consider gamey massing nell-betty torpedo bombers(200+) against ships.
For KB,it is not "gamey" to keep 6 CVs together in 1942.

But, there is always house rules[;)]

[Cuttlefish]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

You know, these discussions frequently get far too emotional. I think it may be because various posters have an attachment to one side or the other, and lose sight of objectivity in their chauvinistic rush to triumph.

With that in mind, and figuring that this would also be in keeping with how accurately this game depicts the historical situation in the Pacific theater anyway, I suggest that the names of the countries involved be changed. That way, there's less danger of people becoming too "patriotic" (in the same sense that lab scientists are now using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments, because there is far less danger of lab personnel becoming emotionally attached to a lawyer).

Let's see. We could have Fredonia and Grand Fenwick as the primary agonists, with such minor contributors as Erewhon, Brobdingnag, and Lilliput.

4E bombing, day or night, has always been weird in WitP. It ain't gonna change, so there's no use talking about it. If it's possible to do something in a game, you gotta let your opponent do it, unless you have established house rules up front.

Otherwise, fageddaboudit.

I think your words are wise, Pasternakski. I'm betting on Brobdingnag, I think they have the horsepower to win.

But I still can't resist offering my opinion on why I think a house rule governing this is a good idea. The OP is getting good results with pilots with experience in the 50s; once those pilots get to experience 70+ night bombing pretty much means game over for Japan.

Airfields and all their planes on every base within their considerable reach will be annihilated; AA and coast guns will be completely destroyed; and any ships in port are pretty much doomed. Hawker's comment about laser-guided munitions isn't that far off the mark, and the Japanese player has no defense at all.

I won't use such tactics when playing the Allies and I hate being subjected to them as the Japanese. I will leave the debate about which side could have done what historically to others; all I know is that taken to its limit this tactic pretty much breaks the game.

[Nemo121]

Unlikely and not fitting in with the doctrine of the time isn't, to me, necessarily gamey.
 
KB operating together as a 6CV force for months on end is unlikely and not fitting with Japan's demonstrated strategic and operational plans at the time ( Japan just LOVED to split forces up on the strategic and operational level ) BUT we see it in-game all the time.
 
 
Sorry but if Japan can employ its forces in a manner which real-life Japan didn't ( but could have with the necessary doctrinal and leadership changes ) then I just don't see a problem with the Allies doing the same with their bombers.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
But I still can't resist offering my opinion on why I think a house rule governing this is a good idea. The OP is getting good results with pilots with experience in the 50s; once those pilots get to experience 70+ night bombing pretty much means game over for Japan.

Airfields and all their planes on every base within their considerable reach will be annihilated; AA and coast guns will be completely destroyed; and any ships in port are pretty much doomed. Hawker's comment about laser-guided munitions isn't that far off the mark, and the Japanese player has no defense at all.

I won't use such tactics when playing the Allies and I hate being subjected to them as the Japanese. I will leave the debate about which side could have done what historically to others; all I know is that taken to its limit this tactic pretty much breaks the game.

Not a thing wrong with house rules. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
I won't use such tactics when playing the Allies and I hate being subjected to them as the Japanese. I will leave the debate about which side could have done what historically to others; all I know is that taken to its limit this tactic pretty much breaks the game.

I'd agree with this, but only if you apply it to both sides. The game is open to being "broken" by either player..., just look at the string of AAR's with Japan over-running China, Russia, India, Australia, etc. Historically the tactics/strategies leading to such occurances range from far-fetched to outright impossible. Have you ever heard a Japanese player complaining about getting Tony's 8 months early? But let the Allies start using their overabundance of B-17's and eveybody start's screaming for "House Rules".

[spence]

The game system permits what were really logistically improbable if not impossible concentrations of aircraft. I am quite sure that the Allied commanders would have massed their 4E bombers if it had actually been possible just as the Japanese commanders would have massed their G4Ms (and infinite supplies of torpedoes) if that were really possible.

Thus both the massed 4E's and the massed G4Ms are gamey. But it would completely unfair to allow one side to game the imperfect system while restricting the other for no better reason than the opponent doesn't like what the system permits.

[morganbj]

My dad was a 4E crewman in England 43-45 and he said that he was bombed most nights.  So, I guess then answer is no.  Well, ... maybe it is.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

the question was "it is gamey".
Not "it is also gamey that x or y is done in the game"

We do not know if they have houserules for other things. So everybody (here mostly allied fanboys with deep social complexes) blaming his opponent for gamey use of the japanese possibilities do it only for his fanboyhood or flamewar.

The question "is it gamey" is easy to answer
Yes
 
Also, with rising experience, the allied player do not need anymore ships, strategy or tactics.
Just nightbomb every base with 4mots.

Okay, if the japanese player counter with wiping out the russians, chinese and india, please do not ask if this is gamey too.
If the japanese player do mine your harbors with betties in 1943, you could be in a stupid situation, cause the game does not react correct to this threat (mining planes have no troubles with cap at all)

It is for you and your opponent to make houserules. If you would be my opponent, using 4mots in this way, i would "cheat" as the japanese also. Certanly, you would loose interest in that game.

WitP has many flaws. If the player do not accept houserules (allways the two guys who play the game) the game will end quickly.

For the historical comments:
the us airforce couldn´t hit anything at night in 1942-1944. So they let the brits do this - and they (the brits) do a lousy job, talking about precesision bombing.
So even if you would attack with 2000 4mots, your results should be lousy. Sadly, the game do it different. So it is gamey (cause using a bug/bad programming routine is gamey). Like preproducing 500 Franks or concentrating 2000 Betties to give your navy a warm welcome (cause concentrating as much planes is way to easy). Or your subs can be scuttled cause every sub in a range 8 from a armybomber-base is dead meat.
Or you "produce" 100 PTs to "defend" atolls (and feel good with it - but only if YOU do it. If your opponent do it, it is gamey [;)])

[Gem35]

How many threads do we need concerning gamey tactics and they almost always end up with allied bombers being gamey.
pbem games never have been considered for me because more than likely I'll get an oponent with a house rule list a mile long.
Good Grief.[8|]
Where is my pillow, I am so sleepy....
[>:][>:][>:]

[Heeward]

Due to the small number of B17's / B24's and LB30's in the early war 100 plane raids should not be feasible by 4 engine bombers till mid(?) 1943.

Therefore your solution maybe to turn off player defined upgrades and / or reducing the number of replacements aircraft.

I also suspect that your opponent is using them in a non-historic manner
1. Making a significant effort to limit losses.
2. Creating additional B17 / B24 squadrons.
3. Concentrating his heavy bomb groups in one or two locations and not spreading them out as they were historically.

I suspect it is no more gamey then the Jappanese runing the equivalent of the Bay of Biscay Offensive in the Ducth East Indies from 1942 on.

A good book on early Pacific War B-17 operations is Fortress Against The Sun: The B-17 Flying Fortress In The Pacific.

[TommyG]

The allies didn't mass their 4e bombers in 1942 because the other theater commanders wouldn't give up the assets. There were more B17s at PH then PM. Since I'm God in my game, I can put them anywhere I want. Is it gamey not to duplicate SoPac and SWPac competition, or not denying Mac a requested asset for whatever reason his perceived Washington enemies had, good or bad? I do not think it is gamey to ignore the political nonsense that was a very real part of the war.

Only half the planes fly, so maintenance issues are fairly represented now, but will not be when experience levels put more planes in the air. A real issue is morale. Flying into daytime combat increases fatigue so quickly that I have to rest two days out of five. Night flying does not seem to cause the same fatigue loss, and it should.
I also agree that accuracy may be off. But, 100 bombers are only knocking out 4-6 planes on the ground and no pilots are lost so the raids are far less than devestating.

On balance, and IMHO, maybe it is a little gamey, but not all that much.
It doesn't matter, Jeff and I have compromised in a way that makes neither of us happy; in other words- a fair result.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

How many threads do we need concerning gamey tactics and they almost always end up with allied bombers being gamey.
pbem games never have been considered for me because more than likely I'll get an oponent with a house rule list a mile long.
Good Grief.[8|]
Where is my pillow, I am so sleepy....
[>:][>:][>:]

If you COULD think about all the flaws of the engine and probable exploits to game the game it would be a list longer than a mile.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Due to the small number of B17's / B24's and LB30's in the early war 100 plane raids should not be feasible by 4 engine bombers till mid(?) 1943.

Therefore your solution maybe to turn off player defined upgrades and / or reducing the number of replacements aircraft.

I also suspect that your opponent is using them in a non-historic manner
1. Making a significant effort to limit losses.
2. Creating additional B17 / B24 squadrons.
3. Concentrating his heavy bomb groups in one or two locations and not spreading them out as they were historically.

I suspect it is no more gamey then the Jappanese runing the equivalent of the Bay of Biscay Offensive in the Ducth East Indies from 1942 on.

A good book on early Pacific War B-17 operations is Fortress Against The Sun: The B-17 Flying Fortress In The Pacific.

In stock "small" numbers are relative. In stock it shouldn´t be much of a problem to see 200-300 4E raids on a regular basis.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Ask your opponant to back up his claims with some historical fact. Japanese Night Fighters and Flak weren't very effective at all during the war..., so if he's not accomplishing anything he's getting accurate results.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It is not gamey because the USAAF did use low-altitude 4eBs in the SoPac theater. What you are doing is historically reasonable both by virtue of historical precedent and because it was one of several 'operational tools in the USAAF's kit. USAAF pilots trained at it well enough that all 4EB crews could conduct a night raid as a matter of course. It was, however, as others have noted already, not (one might say "not hardly") as accurate as daylight bombing.

I can provide some historical info if you like. About IRON RANGE AIRFIELD which is the airfield represented by Cooktown in the game.

Units based here:

Code: Select all

43BG(H) B-17  
    64BS   12/10/42 - 08/11/42
    65BS   13/10/42 - 7/11/42
   403BS   15/9/42  - 22/10/42
 90BG(H)  B-24
   319BS   13/11/42 - 2/2/43
   320BS   13/11/42 - 21/1/43
   321BG   19/11/42 - 10/2/43
   400BS   13/11/42 - 22/3/43
 

(FYI, the 43BG was withdrawn to Cairns in Nov'42 and was then transferred to Port Moresby with the 90BG around Feb'43).

As can be seen, historically 100+ heavy bombers were operating out of the Cooktown/Cairns area and they were conducting night missions to Rabaul and elsewhere (see link above). An escalation on numbers to 200 bombers is above historical levels but is what I would call reasonable' if you want to have a bit of variation to the game and not be a total slave to history.

The only thing that perhaps is a bit 'gamey' is the effectiveness of these bombers.

When the 90th Bomb Group arrived at Iron Range in November 1942, the two strips named Claudie and Gordon, were still unfinished and not sealed. Tents were pitched amongst the trees for accommodation. Conditions were primitive. Snakes, insects, scorpions, etc were prevalent. The men of the 90th Bomb Group described it as the worst airfield they were ever posted at during the war.

The picture below shows what the actual strip was like and may go explain why historical results fall short of what the game produces.


It was also a dangerous occupation as the following links attest:
16 NOVEMBER 1942 - CRASH OF A B-24 LIBERATOR and
26 DECEMBER 1942 - CRASH OF A B-24 LIBERATOR
(Note: Both were night missions...)

Personally I feel that the 4E combat effectiveness is reasonable. What I think is missing is the difficulty in maintaining the effectiveness of the 4E units under primitive conditions.

[jwxspoon]

But, 100 bombers are only knocking out 4-6 planes on the ground and no pilots are lost so the raids are far less than devestating.

Actually you were knocking out 15-20 a day until I evacuated the base. Went down to 4-6 because the damaged planes that could not fly out were then being destroyed.

But, as Tom said, we've come to a good compromise that doesn't please either of us, but that we can both live with.

jw

[Gem35]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Gem35

How many threads do we need concerning gamey tactics and they almost always end up with allied bombers being gamey.
pbem games never have been considered for me because more than likely I'll get an oponent with a house rule list a mile long.
Good Grief.[8|]
Where is my pillow, I am so sleepy....
[>:][>:][>:]

If you COULD think about all the flaws of the engine and probable exploits to game the game it would be a list longer than a mile.

That is why I don't game online anymore, every game that has ever been created for online or person to person always will be exploited by folks.

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned game enjoyed by both or in an online setting all individuals?
I've spent so much time in other games where I started out having fun and then someone comes by and wrecks it all.
I would usually find out it was caused by some kid, not grown adults.

[1275psi]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

You know, these discussions frequently get far too emotional. I think it may be because various posters have an attachment to one side or the other, and lose sight of objectivity in their chauvinistic rush to triumph.

With that in mind, and figuring that this would also be in keeping with how accurately this game depicts the historical situation in the Pacific theater anyway, I suggest that the names of the countries involved be changed. That way, there's less danger of people becoming too "patriotic" (in the same sense that lab scientists are now using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments, because there is far less danger of lab personnel becoming emotionally attached to a lawyer).

Let's see. We could have Fredonia and Grand Fenwick as the primary agonists, with such minor contributors as Erewhon, Brobdingnag, and Lilliput.

4E bombing, day or night, has always been weird in WitP. It ain't gonna change, so there's no use talking about it. If it's possible to do something in a game, you gotta let your opponent do it, unless you have established house rules up front.

Otherwise, fageddaboudit.

best posting of the month award!!!

(not that some will pay attention to it!!!)[:'(]

[Andvari]

No one has mentioned the Flak Gap in any of the previous postings. Quoting Yamato hugger on this subject from a post of 7/26/07, "Between 6 and 9 is the infamous "flak gap". It isn’t that there is no flak, it just it’s too high for the light guns, and too low for the big ones. This being in stock games. Most mods correct this problem."
 
If you attack shipping, the gap doesn't exist. Forget the number of bombers or the historical precedents, if you compound the Gap with the lack of night fighters, the Japanese bases will get hosed every time.

[Gem35]

I for one want to actually thank all of the grogs who will not accept anything less than quality gameplay for WitP.
Though I am more of the casual gamer , don't get me wrong I play to win but I suppose we do need these folks on the forums if nothing else than to "push" the modders and tireless folks who work on patches and of course AE to provide the best possible product for us.
Just don't wear your underpants so tight sometimes guys.[;)]

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Yes,you can do wonders with KB in 1944,just like with 4E bombers

We're talking about 1942-1943 are we not?

The real Japanese immediately divided up KB into its component carrier divisions after Pearl Harbor and they operated extensively in pairs, only combining to four fleet class CVs for the Indian Ocean and Midway ops.

In the end the point of a consim is to allow players to make different (ahistorical) operational choices using the same forcesthat were historically used (both with respect to numbers and to accurate modeling of capability with these assets).

Massing 4EBs for night raids in 1942 is not gamey because.
1. In 1939 the USAAF was training bombing crews for that sort of thing.
2. In 1942 night bombing missions were flown in the SoPac by the USAAF and using 4EBs.

The only "open question" here seems to be whether or not their effectiveness in the subject of this thread is accurately modeled.

Well said. Fix the game and let the players do what they want. If something is "gamey" then it simply should not be possible to do it.