Matrix Games Forums

You keep on repeating you lack alternative aircraft.  That simply is not true.
 
1.  You have sufficient LB-30 today to immediately change out 34BG/1BS or 34BG/4BS or 34BG/7BS.
 
2.  You have months of new level bomber production to use for downgrading before you lose the units.
 
3.  You have no excuse for still having auto replacements on.  Nor did you manage the 19th BG well at the beginning.  In short your management was and remains poor so your current difficulties are self imposed, not due to the scenario.  To receive the additional B-17D production you sighed for is rewarding poor play.
 
4.  Plenty of new units arrive with obsolescent airframes which can be cannibalised at a fraction of the cost.  These units are not scheduled for withdrawal.
 
5.  Whenever new units arrive with airframes, the pools have not been touched.  That is free additional, over and above your build rates, airframes.
 
 
Mods alter data, they do not alter game code.  You are doing some strange clicking to get the results you are claiming.
 
Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You keep on repeating you lack alternative aircraft.  That simply is not true.

1.You have sufficient LB-30 today to immediately change out 34BG/1BS or 34BG/4BS or 34BG/7BS.
OK LB-30 is a Liberator, equivalent or better than the B17E, are you suggesting to UPGRADE to oblivion??? I'm trying to conserve units as J3 is running wild in the Pacific right now.

2.  You have months of new level bomber production to use for downgrading before you lose the units.
There are four medium bomber replacements in the six months available to upgrade, All the HB are B-17E or better and not useful for this purpose.
A-29 Hudson with 4 per month replacement rate = 20 by August 42
B-25B Mitchell with 6 per month replacement = 30 by August 42
A-20A Havoc with 20 per month replacement = 100 by August 42
B-26 Marauder with 15 per month replacement = 75 by August 42


3.You have no excuse for still having auto replacements on.  Nor did you manage the 19th BG well at the beginning.  In short your management was and remains poor so your current difficulties are self imposed, not due to the scenario.  To receive the additional B-17D production you sighed for is rewarding poor play.
I'm assuming you haven't followed the trail so far,(POST #17) The 19th BG was DISBANDED two weeks into the game at Cagayan for the PP's (as suggested in the AAR). This is a 2 X 1 game and both Larry F and I are rookies It was only after starting the game did I find out Larry F had NEVER played the game as the Allies and he controlled the non-US Allied forces, We switched sides and Larry then took over logistics and the West Coast.
Several bad things have happened, if you read post #11 - I admit there are/were management problems, I've played around 75% of my games as the Allies and never ran across this problem with the dead squadrons before...


4.Plenty of new units arrive with obsolescent airframes which can be cannibalised at a fraction of the cost.  These units are not scheduled for withdrawal.
Agreed - the 308th BG shows up with 24 B-18's in another month. Which means I cannot use either the A-20A or B-26 in combat until I get above the 37 airframes needed to switch out the dead B-17E's. (they wont switch out piecemeal apparently because there is no upgrade path.)The 30th BG doesn't show up for another month after that. THEN I could theoretically have enough airframes to make the switch, barring any combat losses anywhere else draining the pool.


5.Whenever new units arrive with airframes, the pools have not been touched.  That is free additional, over and above your build rates, airframes.
OK This RA mod came with the training groups empty and devoid of aircraft, the 4 engine trainer requires 48 planes, currently there are 42 Bolo's there - I have no more to send. There are 12 Bolo's for the 2E trainers, likewise I'm strapped for aircraft. I'm using 48 P-36 Mohawks for the Fighter trainers. Are they factored into the code or are they particular to this mod, as I believe they are?


Mods alter data, they do not alter game code.  You are doing some strange clicking to get the results you are claiming.

Alfred

You are a legend on the forums and I'm a rookie, But there are some strange results IMHO, that I haven't encountered before playing this game. I have around 25-30 games/scenarios played, with around 5 PBEM games played (none completed)... So I wouldn't be bitching if I didn't see something wrong. And even John3rd said CanoeRebel complained he had problems with Allied aircraft the RA PBEM he played against him. So I'm not ALL alone here. I may be misguided and wrong but dammit, something isn't jiving here ALONG with our missteps and screw-ups!

Jim

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

B) Buying aircraft with PP’s, The whole mod premise is the Japanese are not following historical doctrine, why is it imperative the US/Allies do so strictly? If you made more Cape Town auto-convoys with reserve airgroups instead, or they were “killed” and had to be bought out with PP’s. Then the Allied player has the option of transferring the planes to another group or disbanding them into the pools... Again its an option the Allied player has to make and there are consequences for doing it built in.

In my mod, I have an option for the allies to take resources from the European theatre ... costs them VP's. Done outboard of course as there is no game mechanism. I put the devices/ships/air groups to Port Stanley. Initially there are some F4F's etc. As the war progresses, other items show up. If the player chooses to use any, he moves them out (or disbands the air groups to the pool). We then adjust the VP's based upon how many he used. Still working on that exact formula as earlier usage should have higher VP penalty. Anyway, just a concept to share with you.

As noted, the IJ player is able to juggle history. Not quite cricket to hold the allied player to history, but there needs to be a penalty exacted when they steal from Europe. Particularly in the early going when there simply wasn't enough to go around ... in '45, well there is plenty to go around ...

ORIGINAL: moore4807

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You keep on repeating you lack alternative aircraft.  That simply is not true.

1.You have sufficient LB-30 today to immediately change out 34BG/1BS or 34BG/4BS or 34BG/7BS.
OK LB-30 is a Liberator, equivalent or better than the B17E, are you suggesting to UPGRADE to oblivion??? I'm trying to conserve units as J3 is running wild in the Pacific right now.

2.  You have months of new level bomber production to use for downgrading before you lose the units.
There are four medium bomber replacements in the six months available to upgrade, All the HB are B-17E or better and not useful for this purpose.
A-29 Hudson with 4 per month replacement rate = 20 by August 42
B-25B Mitchell with 6 per month replacement = 30 by August 42
A-20A Havoc with 20 per month replacement = 100 by August 42
B-26 Marauder with 15 per month replacement = 75 by August 42


3.You have no excuse for still having auto replacements on.  Nor did you manage the 19th BG well at the beginning.  In short your management was and remains poor so your current difficulties are self imposed, not due to the scenario.  To receive the additional B-17D production you sighed for is rewarding poor play.
I'm assuming you haven't followed the trail so far,(POST #17) The 19th BG was DISBANDED two weeks into the game at Cagayan for the PP's (as suggested in the AAR). This is a 2 X 1 game and both Larry F and I are rookies It was only after starting the game did I find out Larry F had NEVER played the game as the Allies and he controlled the non-US Allied forces, We switched sides and Larry then took over logistics and the West Coast.
Several bad things have happened, if you read post #11 - I admit there are/were management problems, I've played around 75% of my games as the Allies and never ran across this problem with the dead squadrons before...


4.Plenty of new units arrive with obsolescent airframes which can be cannibalised at a fraction of the cost.  These units are not scheduled for withdrawal.
Agreed - the 308th BG shows up with 24 B-18's in another month. Which means I cannot use either the A-20A or B-26 in combat until I get above the 37 airframes needed to switch out the dead B-17E's. (they wont switch out piecemeal apparently because there is no upgrade path.)The 30th BG doesn't show up for another month after that. THEN I could theoretically have enough airframes to make the switch, barring any combat losses anywhere else draining the pool.


5.Whenever new units arrive with airframes, the pools have not been touched.  That is free additional, over and above your build rates, airframes.
OK This RA mod came with the training groups empty and devoid of aircraft, the 4 engine trainer requires 48 planes, currently there are 42 Bolo's there - I have no more to send. There are 12 Bolo's for the 2E trainers, likewise I'm strapped for aircraft. I'm using 48 P-36 Mohawks for the Fighter trainers. Are they factored into the code or are they particular to this mod, as I believe they are?


Mods alter data, they do not alter game code.  You are doing some strange clicking to get the results you are claiming.

Alfred

You are a legend on the forums and I'm a rookie, But there are some strange results IMHO, that I haven't encountered before playing this game. I have around 25-30 games/scenarios played, with around 5 PBEM games played (none completed)... So I wouldn't be bitching if I didn't see something wrong. And even John3rd said CanoeRebel complained he had problems with Allied aircraft the RA PBEM he played against him. So I'm not ALL alone here. I may be misguided and wrong but dammit, something isn't jiving here ALONG with our missteps and screw-ups!

Jim

1. The LB-30 is not a better overall aircraft than the B-17E.

2. By your own figures you have future production of 225 medium bombers which could be used to free up B-17E. It is neither the fault of the scenario designer nor of the game code if you, for your own reasons refuse to utilise those assets to solve your own self imposed problem regarding the Fortresses.

3. I had read your post #17 before posting. I do my AE research, which is why I know when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. It was Allied mistakes which saw those B-17D airframes lost. The Allied player disbanded at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Another self inflicted wound.

4. Your comments about the 308th are superficial and not relevant. For someone who has played AE as much as you claim to have done, you ought to recognise that you only need a single airframe, out of the 225 future medium bomber production, to replace all the airframes in a non withdrawing squadron. Besides this has been covered at great length in the forum on many occasions.

5. It has never been necessary to have any aircraft in a unit before pilot training can be undertaken. Again something which has been identified often on the forum. If you have filled up trainer squadrons with airframes, again another self inflicted wound.



Canoerebel, just like your side, misused his airforce.

What worked against a particular opponent in a particular scenario will not necessarily work against a different opponent and scenario. This game requires intelligent application of assets. That in turn requires proper assessments, taking particular notice of differences. Rote playing, which replicates uncritically past actions, is not intelligent playing. Knowing on 7 December 1941 that you have a fragile airforce and then proceeding to disregard that fact in how you use that airforce, is not intelligent play and will result in your current predicament.


Alfred

Alfred,

Last post and I'm done with you...

1)LB-30's superior radius range, equal bombload, same armour rating, and slightly less gun value all combine to make the LB-30 comparable if not superior to the B-17. Your opinion does not hold up to these facts.

2)The STATIC replacement number OVER 5 months is 225,(which I conveniently point out - is not here yet!) yet you neglect to consider any operational losses (which actually did occur in early 1942) against the Japanese in these figures. Shall I go back and break down what WAS available to me from Dec-41 through March 42? Your arrogance is not appreciated when asking for help.

3)It was a mistake to send the B-17 airframes to the southernmost route possible to thwart an unhistorical Japanese attack on Western OZ? R E A L L Y??? The fastest AK's escorted by DD's is something the Joint Chiefs wouldn't have risked to maintain Australia? Disbanding the 18TH BG on Christmas day was at the advice of an "experienced" player you now conveniently label a mistake... which makes it subjective.

4) Hello? you stray off topic here. I complained about the WITHDRAWING squadrons (34th BG) taking their B-17's. Your reply here is what's superficial and non-relevant. I need full groups to replace the 34th's BG and you are not addressing the fact that I need to suspend/prevent staffing of either A-20A's or B-26's for MONTHS to gather the requisite airframes to swap out the B-17E's prior to the withdrawal date.

5)OK - for at least the fifth time I REPEAT, I have never had this problem in the previous games played, when I did this time I went to my opponent first to explain myself, I also spoke to Michael Benoit about it, he was VERY helpful with his advice, but it still does not totally jive with what I see in the game. May I remind you the John 3rd POSTED this first, not me!

Finally where I identified myself and Larry as rookies, it was in deference to people like you who have played much more than I, however your arrogance and callousness in your reply is exactly why I will never post questions here again.

You remind me of the intelligent idiot I had to deal with when I took my college boards so many years ago. So anxious to show off your knowledge and put others down for not being on the same "level" - I threw away the MENSA application he gave me, because even though I qualified in the top 2% of my boards, the thought of being associated with someone like that made me want to puke. You Sir have brought back that unpleasant memory quite vividly.

I've already voice my opinion on this multiple times.  Allied airframe production was predicated on the Midway results, combined with the results of the attrition during the Solomon’s campaign.  Those results do not occur in game.  We have already seen AAR's where a savvy Axis player can out produce, and even out research the Allied side.  That would never have happened historically.  Budgets would have been adjusted to account for the shifts in strategy.  It still would be Europe first, and it should be.  But historically by 1944 allied production was far ahead of axis in both production & research.  Budgets were being reduced , as they should be, as there was already enough material to prosecute the war.  The game is set up, as a game, with allowances so the Japanese player has tools to advance and make the game fun.  But the allies are kept to historical limits.
 
Heck, I would be happy if I could just adjust airframe production similar to the Japanese side.  Let me eliminate the P51 airframe, which in game is just a glorified P-40, and put up 3000 P-47D's instead.  Historically ridiculous, but in game terms it makes sense.
 

ORIGINAL: moore4807

Alfred,

Last post and I'm done with you...

1)LB-30's superior radius range, equal bombload, same armour rating, and slightly less gun value all combine to make the LB-30 comparable if not superior to the B-17. Your opinion does not hold up to these facts.

2)The STATIC replacement number OVER 5 months is 225,(which I conveniently point out - is not here yet!) yet you neglect to consider any operational losses (which actually did occur in early 1942) against the Japanese in these figures. Shall I go back and break down what WAS available to me from Dec-41 through March 42? Your arrogance is not appreciated when asking for help.

3)It was a mistake to send the B-17 airframes to the southernmost route possible to thwart an unhistorical Japanese attack on Western OZ? R E A L L Y??? The fastest AK's escorted by DD's is something the Joint Chiefs wouldn't have risked to maintain Australia? Disbanding the 18TH BG on Christmas day was at the advice of an "experienced" player you now conveniently label a mistake... which makes it subjective.

4) Hello? you stray off topic here. I complained about the WITHDRAWING squadrons (34th BG) taking their B-17's. Your reply here is what's superficial and non-relevant. I need full groups to replace the 34th's BG and you are not addressing the fact that I need to suspend/prevent staffing of either A-20A's or B-26's for MONTHS to gather the requisite airframes to swap out the B-17E's prior to the withdrawal date.

5)OK - for at least the fifth time I REPEAT, I have never had this problem in the previous games played, when I did this time I went to my opponent first to explain myself, I also spoke to Michael Benoit about it, he was VERY helpful with his advice, but it still does not totally jive with what I see in the game. May I remind you the John 3rd POSTED this first, not me!

Finally where I identified myself and Larry as rookies, it was in deference to people like you who have played much more than I, however your arrogance and callousness in your reply is exactly why I will never post questions here again.

You remind me of the intelligent idiot I had to deal with when I took my college boards so many years ago. So anxious to show off your knowledge and put others down for not being on the same "level" - I threw away the MENSA application he gave me, because even though I qualified in the top 2% of my boards, the thought of being associated with someone like that made me want to puke. You Sir have brought back that unpleasant memory quite vividly.

You are not good at playing this game as the above post demonstrates perfectly. Nor are you good at analysing and seeing the wood from the trees. in this game.

1. As at March 1942 the LB-30 is an inferior plane to the B-17E. The "facts" you adduce do not help you. The facts which you omit, probably because you don't understand the game, are most pertinent.

(a) Max speed (overlooked by you). The B-17E is a clear winner. The higher speed of the B-17E allows it to avoid many of the Japanese fighters. That means a far greater survivability rate for the B-17E. That means less demand on the B-17E pools. Whereas the LB-30 can be caught even by Nates.

(b) The LB-30 has the better air range. Not of any real value in March 1942 because you lack the airbases within range of valuable enemy targets which can only be used by the LB-30 and too far for the B-17E. So the superior range is only a theoretical positive for the LB-30; in practical use it can't be used therefore it is useless. In any case the additional range of the LB-30 places it even further away from Allied fighter range which is not good for its survivability nor pilot morale.

(c) Max ceiling (overlooked by you). Absolute win for the B-17E. If playing extremely conservatively with the aim to avoid losses to flak and enemy fighters, one can fly at max altitude.

(d) Maneouvre (overlooked by you). A dead heat.

(e) Armour. A dead heat.

(f) Durability. The B-17E is a winner, not by much but still statistically significantly. Better durability means greater airframe survivability. Particularly noticeable when up against rifle calibre enemy machine guns. Still useful even against enemy cannons.

(g) Guns (incorrectly analysed by you). The B-17E has not only more defensive guns, they are better placed too. The LB-30 is not as you claim of slightly less value in this metric.

(h) Bombload. Both airframes can carry 8 x 500lb bombs but the LB-30 has a significantly higher bomb load listing. This means it is slightly better for transporting supplies, a task you would be most unlikely to engage in, but slightly inferior when operating out of small/damaged airfields. Overall close to a dead heat but probably a very slight nod to the B-17E unless transporting supplies constitutes the operational use of the 4Es.


Your assessment is based on only 4 metrics:

range - which you superficially assess to be in favour of the LB-30 when the true practical assessment favours the B-17E.
bombload - again a superficial assessment but in any case does not advance your proposition as you yourself claim it to be a draw
armour rating - your assessment is that it is a draw
gun value - not properly assessed but even your own assessment gives the nod to the B-17E

That means your assessment gives the LB-30 one win (highly dubious), two draws and one loss. Yet on that basis you state unequivocably that the LB-30 is "comparable if not superior to the B-17". When we add the other metrics you conveniently forget to address, the B-17E wins easily on

[center]max speed
max ceiling
durability[/center]

all metrics which have a big impact on survivability in March 1942 and therefore reduce pressure on airframe pools. The other metrics are a draw.

Readers can form their own views on the validity of the opinions. From where I sit, it is your opinion which carries no weight being unsupported by the facts.

2. You really are quite insulting assuming I do not take factors into account. In fact I think several moves ahead of you.

To talk about operational losses again just demonstrates you do not know how to play this game well. There are many things which can be done to reduce operational losses but due to your great concern in this area, together with details disclosed in your various posts, I seriously doubt you are making much of an effort to reduce operational losses.

(a) There is no good reason why every squadron should automatically replace lost aircraft. Lazy players do that, good players do not. You continue to maintain auto replacements where they should not be on.

(b) As seems to be your MO you simply avoid addressing points directly, probably because you have no answer. The so called "static" 225 airframe replacements can be used in the manner I have previously disclosed, at a fraction of the cost I have previously disclosed yet you muddy the waters by introducing "operational losses". In the context of this discussion which is about downgrading squadrons, "operational losses" is a red herring.

Address directly the points I have made about downgrading and point out the specific objective obstacles to what I have said, rather than creating red herrings. This game mirrors real life in that there is an opportunity cost to every decision. Just because you make certain decisions and then do not like the consequences which flow from them, does not mean that better decisions were not available to you.

3. I made no comment whatsoever on your decision to send B-17 airframes on ships. Why am I sarcastically attacked for what I did not state? A guilty conscience perhaps. An inability to cope with details?

I know not who the so called "experienced" player is who made the recommendation. Many players are "experienced" in the sense they have played AE for a reasonable period of time. That does not ipso facto make them a good player. I've seen complete rookies who quickly learn from their mistakes and analyse well who are better players even before they complete their first AE game than some veterans who have been playing the game for years. Besides the "experienced" player may well not have been privy to all the relevant data; kibitzers rarely are.

4. I've already addressed this on several occasions (both above and in earlier posts) and you seem quite incapable to comprehend the point. It requires attention to detail and work on your part.

(a) Non withdrawing squadrons arriving with obsolescent airframes can be downgraded with only 1 modern airframe. That eventually provides you with sufficient obsolescent airframes to downgrade withdrawing squadrons

(b) Future arriving squadrons equipped with obsolescent airframes can only be downgraded if the full TOE is in the pool BUT if these squadrons are not scheduled to be withdrawn until late 1943, you will have almost a year to subsequently downgrade them using obsolescent airframes subsequently returned to the pools from both withdrawing and upgraded squadrons

(c) You are fighting the war incorrectly. Like many players you seem to belong to the school of thought that the enemy must be opposed everywhere. That is simply poor play. Intelligent play entails determining which battles are winnable, which should be fought.

5. Another of your non sequiturs. Correct, this thread was opened by John3rd. So what, he merely invited comments. You have chimed in presenting as "facts" things which are not so. Scenario designers should not adjust their work merely on the basis of poor play by some players. The bottom line is that you are not good enough to play this scenario against your current opponent, and under the cover of presenting unsubstantiated organic scenario deficiencies, are pleading for the scenario to be made easier to play.


I know nothing of repairing cars, I leave that to car mechanics. I know nothing about medicine, I leave that to doctors. I do know how to analyse, be attendant to detail, to take into account the specifics of a position and to base my actions on proper research. Putting aside the issues surrounding the validity of IQ tests, being a MENSA candidate in the past does not qualify you for every endeavour in the world. Nor does being associated with college boards automatically qualify you for this game. What ever you have done in the past is largely irrelevant to playing AE if you don't do the work and pay attention to detail now. Past glories are no substitute but often provide a cloak of arrogance especially if accustomed to receiving obsequious behaviour from underlings.

Alfred

Even though the thread took a major turn, I can say that I learned a few things from Alfreds post so a Thanks is in order.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

B) Buying aircraft with PP’s, The whole mod premise is the Japanese are not following historical doctrine, why is it imperative the US/Allies do so strictly? If you made more Cape Town auto-convoys with reserve airgroups instead, or they were “killed” and had to be bought out with PP’s. Then the Allied player has the option of transferring the planes to another group or disbanding them into the pools... Again its an option the Allied player has to make and there are consequences for doing it built in.

In my mod, I have an option for the allies to take resources from the European theatre ... costs them VP's. Done outboard of course as there is no game mechanism. I put the devices/ships/air groups to Port Stanley. Initially there are some F4F's etc. As the war progresses, other items show up. If the player chooses to use any, he moves them out (or disbands the air groups to the pool). We then adjust the VP's based upon how many he used. Still working on that exact formula as earlier usage should have higher VP penalty. Anyway, just a concept to share with you.

As noted, the IJ player is able to juggle history. Not quite cricket to hold the allied player to history, but there needs to be a penalty exacted when they steal from Europe. Particularly in the early going when there simply wasn't enough to go around ... in '45, well there is plenty to go around ...

Pax

I like your line of thinking, from what LST and Gary Childress posted, they said it is possibly a do-able thing and I would be interested to see it happen, even if ends up being another mod.
Thanks for your input.

withdrawn...

There are some alternatives/solutions. Not good in open forums, where people get pissy. Pm coming to you.

Addresses moore's issue and few others, as well. Ciao. JWE

ORIGINAL: moore4807

Gee if only General Kenney knew that before he sent the B17's back for mediums and B-24's...

In-game, and IRL AFAIK, the B-17E was much tougher and more survivable than the LB30. I'm talking about game results, not looking at the stats.

Is the extra range worth anything? Sure, in certain circumstances. And even then you will likely have those air frames for a shorter time than the B-17E, because the LB30 will get shot down at a greater rate.

Alfred is giving you good advice.

BTW, I do NOT use Alfred's advice regarding downgrading of restricted squadrons - I just lose those air frames. Yet my PBM is in December '43 and I still have B-17E and B-17F models in front line service, and even a squadron with 3x B-17D model also in combat. You can manage those pools better. [8D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: moore4807

Gee if only General Kenney knew that before he sent the B17's back for mediums and B-24's...

In-game, and IRL AFAIK, the B-17E was much tougher and more survivable than the LB30. I'm talking about game results, not looking at the stats.

Is the extra range worth anything? Sure, in certain circumstances. And even then you will likely have those air frames for a shorter time than the B-17E, because the LB30 will get shot down at a greater rate.

Alfred is giving you good advice.

BTW, I do NOT use Alfred's advice regarding downgrading of restricted squadrons - I just lose those air frames. Yet my PBM is in December '43 and I still have B-17E and B-17F models in front line service, and even a squadron with 3x B-17D model also in combat. You can manage those pools better. [8D]

I withdrew the message - because it was petty and juvenile. I really regret crossing swords with anyone... I started off saying on the AAR that we were overmatched, and guess what? [&o] So I shouldn't be losing my cool over a game. That's what I'm most disappointed in myself about.


The point that got lost here was at the start of the conversation, I'm not the only one that thinks there could be a little more flexibility in the Allied OOB depending on how the game plays out. I laugh because I'm accused of not being enough of a "player". Did I take the time to ask questions, and to ask for help... What would I look for in someone trying to better themselves?
Or as Gerry Rafferty sang "If you get it wrong, you get it right the next time"




So for the LB-30 vs. B-17 "dispute" even he noted I said comparable first before superior. Gen. Kenney specifically withdrew the B-17's because the height they were bombing at was not producing the results necessary. Also especially it's a moot point because the game doesn't provide for more than a couple of operating squadrons of LB-30 anyway.

I appreciate your feedback - it's pretty much a dead issue with me. I'll play the game out and take it where it goes.

An interesting set of problems and solutions. Thinking on it, I have a “quasi” solution, kinda, sorta. I like JuanGs approach. But it’s something that can’t be implemented in Babes very well, because of the necessity to not stray too far from the stock paradigm. I use something similar, personally, but it’s in an umpired game setting; not goodnik for regular play. But with just a little further ado, here’s an idea for a “quasi” solution that can also be applied across DBB and Stock, as well (points to LST for some of it).

Background: (@moore4807, please note)
I’m gonna use the B-17 as a paradigm, because there’s already stew in that pot, but the concept applies to everything. The air developers put everything they could think of into the grab-bag. Fx, the 34th BG was in training for deployment to ETO. It’s on-map for 8 months, and can’t do jack-all. It’s set to “Disband”, not “Withdraw”, so all pilots and planes are lost no matter what (as happened irl when the pilots and airframes went to ETO). It’s a matter of OOB fiddly-bits.

Some squadrons/groups are “flagged”, in editor data, to withdraw. Others are “flagged” to disband. Data forced withdrawal reverts assets to pools, data forced disbanding reverts assets to ETO (never-never-land). Please note this is different from player initiated wd/db (and eventual 90/120 day reintroduction); the scenario data driven wd/db controls.

Just fyi, B-17Ds start with 1 in the pool, no build, and 8 sqdns/gps, with a total of 44 planes, in-game. B-17Es start with 2 in the pool, have a build rate of 15/month for 6 months (90 total airframes), and 40 sqdns/gps coming in-game with 120 airframes (212 airframes total).

Proposal:
The total coming in-game is not too far from reality; the “distribution” of them is what’s a pain ..
1) Have all arriving sqdns/gps come in with 1 plane. They would have to fill out from the pools.
2) Reallocate the ‘free’ plane numbers to the build rate.
3) Do a sweeping reanalysis of in-game squadrons having first-line aircraft.

There’s more, but I think you can see where I’m coming from .New squadrons come in with jack. Their planes get folded into the builds/pools. They have to get airframes from the pools like everyone else. The pools will be bigger, and the “training” groups will go hunting for hind tit, byt wtfo? I like LST’s take, where he sets up some trainer a/c as “bombers”.

It’s all a matter of personal style. Can do this; can do that; can do anything if it’s wanted.

Ciao. John

I think that's a promising idea John... you might consider moving up the arrival date of squadrons just a tad - if that approach were taken...just to give them time to fill out with the aircraft they no longer come with...
Just a thought expanding on your idea.

ORIGINAL: Symon

An interesting set of problems and solutions. Thinking on it, I have a “quasi” solution, kinda, sorta. I like JuanGs approach. But it’s something that can’t be implemented in Babes very well, because of the necessity to not stray too far from the stock paradigm. I use something similar, personally, but it’s in an umpired game setting; not goodnik for regular play. But with just a little further ado, here’s an idea for a “quasi” solution that can also be applied across DBB and Stock, as well (points to LST for some of it).

Background: (@moore4807, please note)
I’m gonna use the B-17 as a paradigm, because there’s already stew in that pot, but the concept applies to everything. The air developers put everything they could think of into the grab-bag. Fx, the 34th BG was in training for deployment to ETO. It’s on-map for 8 months, and can’t do jack-all. It’s set to “Disband”, not “Withdraw”, so all pilots and planes are lost no matter what (as happened irl when the pilots and airframes went to ETO). It’s a matter of OOB fiddly-bits.

Some squadrons/groups are “flagged”, in editor data, to withdraw. Others are “flagged” to disband. Data forced withdrawal reverts assets to pools, data forced disbanding reverts assets to ETO (never-never-land). Please note this is different from player initiated wd/db (and eventual 90/120 day reintroduction); the scenario data driven wd/db controls.

Just fyi, B-17Ds start with 1 in the pool, no build, and 8 sqdns/gps, with a total of 44 planes, in-game. B-17Es start with 2 in the pool, have a build rate of 15/month for 6 months (90 total airframes), and 40 sqdns/gps coming in-game with 120 airframes (212 airframes total).

Proposal:
The total coming in-game is not too far from reality; the “distribution” of them is what’s a pain ..
1) Have all arriving sqdns/gps come in with 1 plane. They would have to fill out from the pools.
2) Reallocate the ‘free’ plane numbers to the build rate.
3) Do a sweeping reanalysis of in-game squadrons having first-line aircraft.

There’s more, but I think you can see where I’m coming from .New squadrons come in with jack. Their planes get folded into the builds/pools. They have to get airframes from the pools like everyone else. The pools will be bigger, and the “training” groups will go hunting for hind tit, byt wtfo? I like LST’s take, where he sets up some trainer a/c as “bombers”.

It’s all a matter of personal style. Can do this; can do that; can do anything if it’s wanted.

Ciao. John

ORIGINAL: moore4807

I withdrew the message - because it was petty and juvenile. I really regret crossing swords with anyone... I started off saying on the AAR that we were overmatched, and guess what? [&o] So I shouldn't be losing my cool over a game. That's what I'm most disappointed in myself about.

This discussion has become more heated than it should, though things appear to be calming down. To be fair to all sides, you did come out of the box kind of saying "this is all borked" and those who answered did not do a very good job of explaining what you were doing wrong. A couple of things that jumped out at me when scanning this thread:

1) In some of the screen shots you posted, replacements were on for units. If you leave replacements on, units will fill with planes as they become available. A lot of those B-17 units that go away show up with only 1 or 2 B-17s, if you leave replacements on, your B-17 production will be going into units that will go away on you. Late in the game the Allies get enough planes that you can probably leave replacements on, but early on airframes are so hard to come by, all units except possibly carrier based units should have replacements turned off. This is one area where you are bleeding away B-17s.

2) I notice you said that B-17s withdrawn from the Philippines are lost. They are only lost if you don't withdraw them under the right conditions. It's an abstraction, but if a base does not have at least 20,000 supply, withdrawn or disbanding air units will be lost rather than go into the pools. The Withdraw and Disband text on the unit screen shows up as red in these cases.

If you want to withdraw or disband a unit and the text is red, evacuate the unit if possible to a rear area where the is enough supply. This may not be possible in every situation and it may take a while to get all the damaged plane repaired and evacuated, but you should be able to salvage most of the B-17s in the PI if you are careful. With the right management, you should be able to scrape together more airframes than the Allies had historically, but it takes some work to do.

Learning the ropes of airframe management is one thing that you can learn fairly well playing against the AI.

This game has one of the biggest learning curves of any war game ever produced. I was one of the programmers and even I learn new tidbits on the forum all the time.

The point that got lost here was at the start of the conversation, I'm not the only one that thinks there could be a little more flexibility in the Allied OOB depending on how the game plays out. I laugh because I'm accused of not being enough of a "player". Did I take the time to ask questions, and to ask for help... What would I look for in someone trying to better themselves?
Or as Gerry Rafferty sang "If you get it wrong, you get it right the next time"

The Allies can't make changes to production because it is too easy to gin. The Japanese economy is a rob Peter to pay Paul affair. There are resource limits that you have to manage carefully or the entire economy will come crashing down around your ears. The American economy is so strong, you don't have to make compromises like that and could produce thousands more aircraft than were realistically possible. Additionally the Allies have commitments to off map theaters that Japan doesn't have to contend with. If the US could ramp airframe production to insane levels, most of it would still go to Europe.

Most of the production levels in game are not related to combat experiences in the real world. Douglas stepped up SBD-4 production in the fall of 1942 because of the foreseen need for airframes. The SB2C which was supposed to be ready by June 42 was having serious problems and it was obvious the SBD was going to be the front line dive bomber for a while with a bunch of carriers scheduled to arrive in 1943 plus the Marine Corps expanding. Douglas stepped up production about the time Guadalcanal started and this decision had nothing to do with attrition at Guadalcanal.

One thing you will run into in game if you don't lose as many American carriers in 1942 as in the real war is that you will have shortages of carrier aircraft by late 42. We really don't know if this would have happened in the real world or not because the US lost 2/3 of its carriers in 42.

So for the LB-30 vs. B-17 "dispute" even he noted I said comparable first before superior. Gen. Kenney specifically withdrew the B-17's because the height they were bombing at was not producing the results necessary. Also especially it's a moot point because the game doesn't provide for more than a couple of operating squadrons of LB-30 anyway.

I appreciate your feedback - it's pretty much a dead issue with me. I'll play the game out and take it where it goes.
[/quote]

It wasn't really Kenney's decision about losing the B-17s, but the diversion of airframes to Europe. The 8th AF was building up in late 42 and all B-17 production was diverted to the ETO and some to the MTO. The 8th did not like the B-24 because it had a lower ceiling and was a more fragile airplane, so the only heavy bomber available to the Pacific theater was the B-24. Left over B-17s were left in theater, but lack of spares and the rigors of combat meant that the remaining B-17s were getting pretty war weary by mid-1943.

The LB-30 was an early production B-24 diverted from British orders. It had less armor, and less defensive armament than the more combat ready B-24D and later. The B-24s also started arriving at a time of change in the PTO. About the time the B-24s started to arrive in numbers, the Allies were switching over to the offensive and the quality of Japanese pilots were just beginning to decline. A longer range plane with better payload was a good trade off for a more fragile airframe by that point. Japanese fighters were a less potent threat, and in many cases fighter escort was available.

Additionally flak over Japanese bases was not as potent a threat as over Germany. The Germans had a continental land mass in which to stage many flak guns. The best high altitude gun being the 128mm. The famed 88mm did not have the altitude to reach most Allied bombers. The Japanese had some high altitude guns, but fewer of them and their bases didn't have the concentrations of flak the Germans had. So the reduced max altitude of the B-24 was not as big a problem in the Pacific.

For the sort of war the B-24 arrived for, it was well suited. The early versions available in early 1942 were not as well suited to the war at that time both because of what was going on in combat as well as the plane not quite being ready for prime time.

Hopefully we can have a calm discussion about these things. The learning curve is steep and every good player made plenty of mistakes climbing it. Airframe management is one of those skills an Allied player has to learn to get through the first year. It isn't obvious, but it is possible to do better than the Allies did historically.

My schedule doesn't really allow me to play PBEM, so when I do play it is against the AI. I restarted several games when I was learning the ropes and completely botched things up, even playing Allies.

This forum can be very helpful if you couch your concerns a little differently. Asking "is it me or what?", or "what am I doing wrong?" tends to get more helpful answers than "this is broken!" Sometimes you may have run into a quirk of the game, other times you may have painted yourself into a corner without realizing it. Both happen to all of us.

Bill

I started the Thread and have stayed out because I wanted to see what the membership thought of the issue.

To be frank, I would entertain some sort of system to allow for pulling planes out of the ETO or other areas as described by various ideas of paying PPs or other things. There would be NO ISSUE from me if we used my new Mods+RA as an experiment to see if this might be workable. To say that this Mod man does not have the skills to do what has been described is an understatement. If one of the other Modders want to chat on this we can settle on a Scenario (I like DaBabes 29c) and you do the work then send it to me for the Mod contribution within the vision of the scenario. Is anyone interested in trying this?

Thanks Bill, and others, for jumping in when things got a little hot.

ORIGINAL: Big B
I think that's a promising idea John... you might consider moving up the arrival date of squadrons just a tad - if that approach were taken...just to give them time to fill out with the aircraft they no longer come with...
Just a thought expanding on your idea.

Yeah. Woof !! Ideas are like thingies; everyone's got one and they all smell as sweet.

Seems like our moderator has turned off the discussion. Oh, well. Maybe some other time. Ciao. JWE

Not turned off, just be cautious about the tone.

Bill

What happened to the spirit of cooperation and helpfulness?

EDIT: Never mind.........everything is calmed down now.