BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

[vicberg]

No zero bonus...that's makes it even more apparent.  Good to know though.  I've been knocking down B-17Ds and Es...but only if I have sufficiently more fighters (zeroes) than his bombers. 

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

No zero bonus...that's makes it even more apparent.  Good to know though.  I've been knocking down B-17Ds and Es...but only if I have sufficiently more fighters (zeroes) than his bombers. 

If the allied player manages his fatigue and morale levels well, you will have difficulty knocking down the B-17s.

In my game with Brad, he has been bombing Noumea and the occasional cargo TF from Suva. I average maybe one shoot down for every raid of 30-40 bombers he sends. I tend to damage 5-10 per raid according to the combat report but the damage must be realtively light as I haven't noticed much reduction in the numbers he can send. Brad does a good job of resting his bombers as needed. He may be rotating bomber units too so that may be why his numbers are staying up. For awhile he was flying a mission each day for 2-3 days then standing down. Currently he has been stood down for several days so he is either repairing them or moving them to somewhere with less fighter defence.

I have been opposing him with up to 40 fighters, mostly Zeros but I tried a few Nicks as well. My fighter losses are averaging just a bit more than his losses, maybe 1.5:1. I have a dozen or so damaged every raid but at least 50% are repaired by the next day. I try to rotate fighter units out to maintain decent morale and fatigue. The Nicks are worthless. They don't get shot down much but they seldom inflict any damage. They do spend a lot of time on the ground repairing due to their service rating compared to the Zero.

The losses on both sides seem to be within historical limits in our game.

My only complaint with the bombers is that they seem to drive off the opposing fighters far too often. I believe that may be a result of the way the B-17s guns are modeled in that they all have the same accuracy rating. It would require quite a bit of testing to prove but I don't think it is worth it at this point to make a federal case out of it. It's perfectly acceptable to me the way it is.

Chez

[CapAndGown]

Your Zero's are probably doing better than the Nicks because the pilots are better. I have found that Nicks are the best anti-4E fighter the Japanese get early in the war. But it takes a while for the pilots to get decent. Once you get George's, etc., Nicks will be less useful. Zero's are quite vulnerable to B-17 guns. Once you get Tojo's, use those instead. They have a higher durability even if their guns leave much to be desired.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Your Zero's are probably doing better than the Nicks because the pilots are better. I have found that Nicks are the best anti-4E fighter the Japanese get early in the war. But it takes a while for the pilots to get decent. Once you get George's, etc., Nicks will be less useful. Zero's are quite vulnerable to B-17 guns. Once you get Tojo's, use those instead. They have a higher durability even if their guns leave much to be desired.

We are playing with PDU off so my ability to upgrade my fighter units is severely hampered. I tend to use Zeros rather than the Oscars in the South Pacific due to the long ranges needed at times.

Chez

[vicberg]

IMO, I'm shooting them down because of odds.  It's now 3 games including my 2x2 da big babes.  In the 2x2 game, the allies have relegated 4E attacks to night which aren't doing much.

The devs have taken the board game (which I owned) way beyond the original concept, but I'm still seeing that it's very much an odds driven game.  Whether land, sea or air.  More is better. 

40 zeroes against 40 4Es isn't going to do much.  I have consistently 2-1, 3-1 or 4-1 fighters to 4Es and the 4Es drop.   If you don't have enough squads to achieve the odds, ok, that's life.  But if you can, and he's consistently attacking a single target, then stack, stack, stack and you WILL see a difference. 

[vicberg]

And obviously, I have more air support than needed, lots of engineers to keep the base up from counter attacks and an air HQ...so I commit to defending against the BUFFs...

[ChezDaJez]

40 zeroes against 40 4Es isn't going to do much. I have consistently 2-1, 3-1 or 4-1 fighters to 4Es and the 4Es drop. If you don't have enough squads to achieve the odds, ok, that's life. But if you can, and he's consistently attacking a single target, then stack, stack, stack and you WILL see a difference.

I agree that the game is largely based on odds however one should be aware of the fact that Brad and I are trying to stay within the realm of historical correctness as much as we can while allowing for some logical leeway. That means no huge fighter sweeps, no huge bomber raids, no overstacking of airfields or bases, etc, etc, etc... We do deviate from the historical strategic plan but we try to remain within the historical tactical abilities of the units.

We play with PDU off for that reason. This severely limits the number of "modern" aircraft that both sides can have on the map. Nearly half of my army units are still flying Nates as an example.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Not to raise a dead horse again but I thought others might find this interesting. It is quite long and has a tendency to repeat itself but still a very interesting USAAF treatise on aerial flexible gunnery training. Almost seems amazing that the gunners could hit anything the way they were trained. I especially found the part about gunners who used tracers interesting. The report says that tracer use gave the impression that they were hitting the target but found they were firing behind the target by a large margin.

USAAF Flexible Aerial Gunnery Training

Chez

[Nikademus]

after being inside a B-24 in particular, i'm amazed the waist gunners were even able to aim at, much less shoot at an incoming plane. CRAMPED!

17 was roomier but still tight.....you wern't as at much risk bonking your mate manning the other waste gun.