Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I will try to do some tests on Sunday...

As you have time, energy and inclination. (Meant to include that in the post.) Enjoy your Christmas.

diesel7013,

Good post - well said.

Ron,

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not ... even possible physically for that matter.

B29's were capable of bombing ports, airfields, and ships at sea. The only thing that kept them from being used that way was doctrine. It was possible and is realistic. How effective they would be in such roles is a different question.

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically...

The game allows Japanese players to turn off IJN Submarine Doctrine and use those assets differently, but for what they were realistically capable of. That is a good thing. It was not an option historically strictly because of doctrine, just like restrictions on B29 use.

I support the same choice for all aspects of the game where it is possible or practical (I realize that playability is an issue and that might pose some limitations).

ORIGINAL: witpqs

diesel7013,

Good post - well said.

Ron,

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not ... even possible physically for that matter.

B29's were capable of bombing ports, airfields, and ships at sea. The only thing that kept them from being used that way was doctrine. It was possible and is realistic. How effective they would be in such roles is a different question.

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically...

The game allows Japanese players to turn off IJN Submarine Doctrine and use those assets differently, but for what they were realistically capable of. That is a good thing. It was not an option historically strictly because of doctrine, just like restrictions on B29 use.

I support the same choice for all aspects of the game where it is possible or practical (I realize that playability is an issue and that might pose some limitations).

Also would people like to say that Japan could not use convoy's until a certain date in the war.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

diesel7013,

Good post - well said.

Ron,

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not ... even possible physically for that matter.

B29's were capable of bombing ports, airfields, and ships at sea. The only thing that kept them from being used that way was doctrine. It was possible and is realistic. How effective they would be in such roles is a different question.

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically...

The game allows Japanese players to turn off IJN Submarine Doctrine and use those assets differently, but for what they were realistically capable of. That is a good thing. It was not an option historically strictly because of doctrine, just like restrictions on B29 use.

I support the same choice for all aspects of the game where it is possible or practical (I realize that playability is an issue and that might pose some limitations).

Do not trust what we are given as choices for doctrine in this game. For example..Allied sub doc. This has to be the most poorly researched feature in the game ([:D]...actually, there are worse design models).Enough said..we should be able to play with this,as long as the combat model works for both approaches. With Allied ASW,there is no reason to try either commerce or fleet attrition tactics as Allied ASW destroys your subs regardless of your approach.

What I don't like are tactics based on flawed performance which is sooo common in this game. Need I list the myriad of examples or can you just accept this as true?[;)]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What I don't like are tactics based on flawed performance which is sooo common in this game. Need I list the myriad of examples or can you just accept this as true?[;)]

Ron,

We are in 'violent agreement' on this. Everything I write intends to convey the very same point. [:D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What I don't like are tactics based on flawed performance which is sooo common in this game. Need I list the myriad of examples or can you just accept this as true?[;)]

Ron,

We are in 'violent agreement' on this. Everything I write intends to convey the very same point. [:D]

Screw you brother![:D]

[8D]

The horse ain't dead yet. This discussion convinced me to pull out and reread my old copy of "B-17 Fortress at War", 1977, Roger Freeman. Some intersting obsevations.

- Pg36, During the early war period of retreat the B-17 was used extensively on tactical missions such as conducting airfield, naval and port attacks. By and large these attacks weren't very successful. In 350 sorties against ships the crews claimed to have sunk 3 warships and 8 transports. A review of Japanese records showed that only 2 of the ships could have been hit by B-17's.

- B-17E had extensive maintenance problems when it appeared in Early 1942. Pg 37, "rarely did the number of B-17's dispatched on a mission run to double figures. Often only 3 or 4 aircraft composed a strike force."

- Pg 40, 5000-6000 feet was determined to be the optimum altitude to minimize the effect of AA fire. It was "too high for small arms fire and low enough to cause sighting difficulties for the heavier ship mounted guns." Some land attacks were conducted at 18000-20000 feet although most land bombing was conducted at medium altitude (undefined).

- The approved formation for naval attack was a vee of 5 aircraft sometimes a 6th was added between the trail bombers.

- Pg37, New Caledonia was unable to accomodate the 35 B-17E's of the 11th bomb group in July 1942. It wasn't until much later (undefined) that it was able to support this single bomb group.

Based on this info I think the B-17 should be able to conduct every kind of attack. The attrition rates probably need to be adjusted upward for the B-17 to more accurately reflect aircraft availability. Naval and port attacks should have a near zero probability of achieveing hits. 4E Bombers operating below 5000 feet ought to get torn up. The cap on the number of 4E bombers that can operate from a base ought to be tougher perhaps ((airfield size-4)squared)X25, which means a size 5 airfield could handle 25 - 4E bombers, size 6 airfield 100 - 4E bombers and so on.

Also these planes regularly returned to base with dead crew members. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to incur a percentage of pilot losses on damaged aircraft. This would keep the 4E aircraft invincibility from driving crew training level to unrealistic heights.

I have been lurking for this discussion for a while. A couple of points to throw in (and they get back down in the trench)

-AAA effectiveness is not that bad in this IMHO. German anti-air defenses were not only more sophisticated technologically, they were vastly more numerous and the allies had to fly over miles and miles of them. Japan and its assets were hampered terribly by the fact that most of thier "good stuff" was/is on the coast. No flying over 600 miles of occupied territory. Approached correctly a place like Rabal or Truk or Tokyo Bay might have engagement envelopes for AA guns of the time of something like 90 seconds. Without Proximity rounds, This means each gun (75mm or larger here, not little ones which will be out of range generally) might have 6-8 shots at say 15000feet, perhaps only 3-4 at 25000). German massed AAA fire around significant sights like Berlin or Ploesti still left large formations to return to base. Given that Japan due to geography and general technology couldn't have replicated even 1/10 of the German AAA capability against incoming allied bombers, AAA seems okay to me.

-All this talk about doctrine ignores the fact that since America could read Japans codes they used thier naval air to smash the japanese at midway. This is a HUGE issue that cannot be ignored. I CANNOT replicate this in WITP nor would I expect to. Had the allies not had this ability would Lemay been told to shut up and sent a 130 b-17 raid against rabaul harbor? Would 24 plane b-17 units out of a still held wake island or PM be given practice doing antishipping raids? Maybe Not or Maybe, but that's what simulations are for.

-As far as hitting shipping, I have been running large 8000 foot raids against passing Japanese ships from PM, Kendari and Amibona (sp?). When they go out, something like say 30 liberators out of Ambonia will fly against two PG's and an AP and hit two of the three. Given that they dropped something on the order of 400+ bombs from perfect alitiude without serious opposition again, I don't see it as that strange. People may claim that since those bombers only bombed in boxes they would just spray and pray. Or maybe they were told to break up into three plane elements and attack in order. This type of doctrinal change is certainly on the level of say Japan's CV's never ever splitting up and staying in deathstar for the whole war. That is, it isn't gamey in the sense of teleport abuse or a glitch, its just something that nobody did, but certainly could have done.

Interestingly when the deathstar approached kendari in my game, even with 80+ 2E and 4e bombers, twenty torpedo bombers and 70 fighter escorts (all assorted) I was unable to do anything to them other than lose half the planes (although I did land one lucky bomb on a CVL which then caught fire and was later torpedos by one of the K subs six of which were patrolling the area). My oppenent withdrew the deathstar really just because of that lucky bomb hit and general attrition after trying to pound kendari and meeting the half dozen base units and two AAA units stationed there (kates do not like that it seems).

-The only thing in this game that is really odd is that supply is not much of a constraint. In my games the house rule is that 4E planes may only fly once per week from bases without 75K in supplies, or up to three times per week from 100K+. This is because of exactly the previous point. those 30 liberators dropped 100 tons of bombs against just three ships. Given packaging, I believe that even a large cargo ship could probably not take on more than 300-500 tons of bombs. If you try with this style house rule, it really seems to make it work okay, as it just represents the Allies using filthy amounts of material superiority agaisnt the japanese. Again I would doubt that at the start of the war there were enough gp 500lb bombs in the entirity of the Allied possessions to maintain my style of bombing for more than two days. After the delivery of 200+ 4e bombers and a nice railroad of some thirty cargo ships a week however, I don't see it as gamey.

Evidence was asked for regarding the effectivness of 17's and 24's bombing ships at sea...

See no further than the Battle of Bismark Sea - 25's, 26's, 17's, and I believe 24's were used to sink 8 Japaneese transports as well as 4 DD's and heavily damaged 4 others... The medium bombers began with skip bombing and the heavies finished them off w/ level bombing ( though I believe some heavy pilots were experimenting with the skip bombing as well at this time )...

These aircraft COULD have been used against ships in port... Just reading a book I got for Christmas discussing US plans for TRUK... in late '43 and early '44 were considering a heavy B-24 raid of the port and shipping in a campaing to run them out in addition to the use of carrier planes - even discussed dropping the atomic bomb there instead of Japan but changed their mind as they wanted to make a bigger psychological impact...

It's a game - what COULD we do vs. what actually did happen...

Diesel, it'd been awhile since I read anything about Bismark Sea, in my memory it was all mediums and fighters, but you're right, the heavys did get in their licks too. Not so good against maneuvering warships maybe, but just fine vs merchies (and therefore, I suppose, against ships in port). Something about the horizontal-bombing-vs-ships-in-port execution seems to need tweaking though.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I will try to do some tests on Sunday...

No time on Suday... sorry guys... [:(]


Leo "Apollo11"

Who gave you permission to have a life beyond WitP?[;)]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I will try to do some tests on Sunday...

No time on Suday... sorry guys... [:(]

Gift Certificate Redemption Day kept you busy? [;)]

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

There is a very good reason why things that we are seein occur regularly with 4E bombers didn't happen very often during WWII. Doctrine, the U.S. and British bomber commands of the time ascribed to the airpower theory of Douhet. He believe that airpower had primacy and if it was used properly it could win a war single handedly. Army and Naval forces were supporting forces to the greater strategic battle. Read for yourself.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/6win90.html

Hap Arnold and all the bomber boys that went through bomber command training were true believers. The Army Air Corp probably built B-25/26's just to keep to keep higher command from requesting that their precious strat bombers be used to support tactical level action. There aren't many instances during WWII where strat bombers were used at the tactical level. Midway where desparation and the survival of their base was at stake and Normandy where Ike insisted come to mind.

If you don't want to make major changes to the game system perhaps 4E bombers should only be able to conduct Port attacks and naval attacks (coordinated naval attacks by 4E bombers should not be allowed since they only did it when someone put a gun to their head).

Otherwise you could devise another attack option (Strategic Attack) that would be the only option (other than naval attack) for 4E bombers. Strategic attack could only be used against major population centers or sites where resources/industry exist. Strategic attack would focus damage on industry/resources/accumulated manpower while doing significantly less damage to colocated ports/airfields/ground combat units.

The problem is that while your arguement holds water in Europe, it doesn't in the
Pacific. There weren't any real "strategic" targets in range in 1942-43, so the "heavies"
were used as patrol planes, and to strike targets like Rabaul, and to "soften up" islands
for invasions. The were important as much for their longer range and self-defending
capabilities as their bomb loads. If an enemy TF showed up, they would make an attack
on that as well, though generally with limited effectiveness as they weren't very good at
hitting moving targets from 10,000 feet. In the Pacific, they WERE used as "jacks-of-
all-trades". Only the B-29's were held to more "strategic" roles like city smashing and
mining---mostly because they had the range to reach "strategic" targets. And had a
Japanese TF been sighted heading for their bases in the Marianas in 1945, you can be
sure they would have tried their hand at naval attack as well.

What about changing the 4E bombers so that they are not able to be set to naval attack? Instead they could only be given orders to suppress airfields or do city bombing attacks against industry. Those things that they were designed to do. Lets just face it the big 4E bombers were not designed for low level shipping attacks or dive bombing attacks. IRL they were used to bomb cities/airfields/ports/ground units into submission or at least cause large scale disruption.

The first aircraft to employ skip-bombing techniques were B-17s. B-17s and other 4E bombers attacked naval targets in and out of port (with no great success) throughout the war. Any limitation on what role they may be employed in is ahistorical.

Other than the "flash in the pan" success the Bettys/Nells had on Dec 10, 1941 against Prince of Wales and Repulse their level of success against shipping was pretty low. Such success as they did "enjoy" was at night when they could hide in the darkness while making their run in. When faced with seriousfighter opposition and/or flak a l'americain the Bettys and Nells earned and deserved the reputation as "one shot lighters/Ronsons" that their crews gave them.

Re 4 engines forr this and 2 engines for that:

You sort of wind up using what you have. (Didn't somebody famous just say that on TV?).

Like using Escort Carriers against the Japanese BBs at Leyte Gulf (or was it Samar?). That should never have been allowed. Everyone knows Escort Carrier planes only can fly ASW missions.

The Japanese should have demanded that the Umpire disallow that and give them a win.

And the Japanese should have complained the Game Designer gave players too much freedom of action in the Game Forum, too [:D]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Gift Certificate Redemption Day kept you busy? [;)]

Nah... [;)]

BTW, no time on Monday and Tuesday as well... will try today...


Leo "Apollo11"

Err, I was wondering something that your test perhaps could show:

Is the number of actual ships at the port alter the number of hits on ships...

Seems pretty obvious but the trick is = are they miss converted to hit on ship or port/supply hit converted to ship hit ?

In the first case then we have a problem as this means that each bomb is tested TWICE to see if it hit or not, and that probably make large bomb carrier that much more efficient...

If the Hit on port/installation keep in number but we have more and more ships hits then perhaps ... I dont know. Some testing really needed there I feel.