Changes to B-17s in 1.5

[BlackVoid]

I completely agree with most of the posts here.
The B-17 is overpowered, there is a totally unrealistic number of them and they are way too easy to keep operational.

medicff: There was absolutely no doctrine about not using them. In real life the allies would have used them (and they did use what they could), but the planes were not available in large enough numbers.

I am very skeptical about any official change on this matter, IIRC the repair problem of groups vs squadrons was not even acknowledged by Matrix. Also, any change will result in a massive whining campaign by allied fanboys who are much more vocal than the other side.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid
I am very skeptical about any official change on this matter, IIRC the repair problem of groups vs squadrons was not even acknowledged by Matrix. Also, any change will result in a massive whining campaign by allied fanboys who are much more vocal than the other side.

How true!

Allied fanboys are so very vocal and whiney, any change they perceive as anti-allied and they threaten revolution. I want to achieve balanced, non-fanboy approach to this game, but with so many allied fanboys going ape about every minor issue they perceive as problem, I find myself "pushed" towards IJN fanboy club, which I personally want to avoid at all costs [:-]

O.

[33Vyper]

I see complaints about the B17s....and I agree they seem a bit overpowered...and they repair rather quickly.

That being said...when your allied foe concentrates them into one land base especially early on...as the Japanese player you should take the KB and a bombardment group and pummel the hell outta them. And please dont anyone say that is gamey. If you are going to put all you eggs in one basket you deserve having them scrambled [;)]


Just me 2 cents

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bombur
-Hmmm...not sure, if a bomb lands close to a plane (let us wonder, 40 meters) it could destroy a Nate but not a B-17.

B17 is much bigger than Nate so it presents a larger target.

O.

[Halsey]

Hard to bombard them when they are in Calcutta, Decca, Asanol or Charter Towers.[:D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-Maybe we could lower the durability of B-17´s to simulate attrition losses? And you´re correct, we should get back those UV rules.

Its an idea but I think that would produce too many combat losses. The Fort should be a tough nut to knock down ,however the more they are hit the more and longer the planes shold be out of action repairing. (in the game)

I have noticed that op losses dont seem much affected by excessive hits (for damage)

[Grotius]

the more they are hit the more and longer the planes shold be out of action repairing. (in the game)

Well, a longer repair time would be a start. Any chance of this happening?

[Nikademus]

its not a wish list item at present. To be honest I cant blame 2b3 for rolling their eyes if it were given what happened with the UV patch. The good news is that the BS/BG FS/FG repair bug 'has' been fixed so players no longer need to do the split dance.

The bad news, depending on one's viewpoint, is that the BG/FG's repair at the rate the squadrons did so as mentioned, it's pretty easy to keep even a full B-17 BG near 100% operational status if AV pointage is adequate or only a little bit in the red. (unless it gets really nailed in A2A combat)

[pauk]

[:(]

Why I'm not suprised?

[BlackVoid]

Our only hope is the Combined mod, hopefully this will fix the problems with the heavies.

I do not consider myself a fanboy for either side, but I feel just like Oleg. With so many fanboys on the allied side, anyone that brings up an issue regarding overpowered allied equipment is immediately labelled an IJN fanboy.
I am a Pacific and WITP fanboy and not allied or japanese.

[denisonh]

This sounds like a whiney Jap fanboy club thread to me Oleg.[:'(]

There is an issue with the B-17 that needs to be addressed, but it one of several that need to be addressed.

I still believe that the overeffectiveness of early war CAP is far more unbalancing, as CVs wander around invicible early in the war. There are not an abundance of examples of LBA attacks early because naval leaders avoided the situation, but the way the game plays, players park CV groups next to major airbases as they are invulnerable.

So I would submit that neutering both Japanese and Allied unbalancing game effects be addressed.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid
I am very skeptical about any official change on this matter, IIRC the repair problem of groups vs squadrons was not even acknowledged by Matrix. Also, any change will result in a massive whining campaign by allied fanboys who are much more vocal than the other side.

How true!

Allied fanboys are so very vocal and whiney, any change they perceive as anti-allied and they threaten revolution. I want to achieve balanced, non-fanboy approach to this game, but with so many allied fanboys going ape about every minor issue they perceive as problem, I find myself "pushed" towards IJN fanboy club, which I personally want to avoid at all costs [:-]

O.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I still believe that the overeffectiveness of early war CAP is far more unbalancing, as CVs wander around invicible early in the war. There are not an abundance of examples of LBA attacks early because naval leaders avoided the situation, but the way the game plays, players park CV groups next to major airbases as they are invulnerable.

Oh, you are mixing apples and pears. While we can discuss about overeffective CAP we should not forget that BOTH sides have advantage of "uber" CAP. Just because none of us came far in the game ('43,'44) doesn't mean that allies wont have advantage of "uber" CAP.

The main problem here is overrpowered and exceedingly B-17 in the game (i decide to belive Subchaser's data since experts/designers/mods stay ssilent). And this is ONE side issue, causing unbalanced game.

Also i would agree with my "japanese fanboy club members"[:'(], just because i like to play unederdog doesn't mean i'm japano-witphocolic[:D]

[spence]

IN 1944-45 there are quite a few examples of the USN parking next to major Japanese airbases wherein the USN CAP pretty much held Japanese airpower at bay - 100s of IJN/IJA aircraft losses with a relative few "leakers" managing a couple of hits on a ship now and again (Saipan, Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, the Home Islands). Kamikazes were more effective because a "conventional leaker" often missed with his ordinance whereas a "kamikaze leaker" probably got a hit. But the fact remains that there was a very high toll paid by both types of attackers against the USN in 1944-45. The IJN KB never faced off toe-to-toe with massed LBA so there is nothing to support its UBER-CAP historically but the USN did and succeeded for the most part.

[Nikademus]

To be fair....the USN CAP was aided tremendously by the children being thrust into the cockpits of those largely obsolete Japanese aircraft.

[Halsey]

Leave the B-17's alone. It's the only weapons platform the Allies have that's any good in 1942.[:D]

[spence]

Massed 100+ attacks by B-17s didn't happen in the PTO.
NEITHER DID COORDINATED ANTI-SHIPPING STRIKES BY 100+ BETTYS OR NELLS. Could it be that the IJN found it utterly impossible to stockpile and service 100s of aerial torpedos at every medium bomber base in the eventuality that 4-5 Daitai just drop in, refuel, arm and then go smash the decadent westerners (for the time being I'll leave out the fact that after sinking Repulse and Prince of Wales those vaunted torpedo bombers averaged less than 1 torpedo hit a month for the rest of the war in raids by any number against any target ). The game allows the IJN a certainly operational artistic license with their medium bombers. I don't see a corresponding artistic license for the US as a big problem.

(in answer to Nikademus)
"The experts" (as opposed to children) didn't accomplish much off Guadalcanal either - and they didn't even have to contend with F6Fs, VT proximity fuzes or quad 40s.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: spence
"The experts" (as opposed to children) didn't accomplish much off Guadalcanal either - and they didn't even have to contend with F6Fs, VT proximity fuzes or quad 40s.

I wouldn't expect them too given the range and the way by which they were committed. [;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

The good news is that the BS/BG FS/FG repair bug 'has' been fixed so players no longer need to do the split dance.

So why not give the 4E bombers the repair rate they were using when a full group, not divided? Seeing as the 4Es are much tougher to maintain as a full group, why fix it so that the will repair as they do when split? We need to get operational level down. In Mogami's and my match, the B17s are like Eveready Batteries.

[Ron Saueracker]

Oh, you are mixing apples and pears. While we can discuss about overeffective CAP we should not forget that BOTH sides have advantage of "uber" CAP. Just because none of us came far in the game ('43,'44) doesn't mean that allies wont have advantage of "uber" CAP.

The fact that both sides suffer from this is not make it acceptable. Well, seeing as how you both shot each other, we won't press charges.

[Ron Saueracker]

The main problem here is overrpowered and exceedingly B-17 in the game (i decide to belive Subchaser's data since experts/designers/mods stay ssilent). And this is ONE side issue, causing unbalanced game.

This is not the "main problem" with the game. This is the flavour of the month. Problem is that there are soooo many major problems with the game as is. Hopefully we will have enough time to play the monster of a game enough to highlite them before WITP becomes so passe that no further support is forthcoming.