Page 178 of 319
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:34 am
by JohnDillworth
This post is worthless without the combat replay. Heck, one of those targets is clear terrain.
Sorry, I don't have any replays for Operation Cobra. It happened in real life, not in a game. That's my point. The results John are seeing are absolutely historical. They represent what happened in real life. To call them "horse caca" is just sour grapes. 4EB were used in real life against troop concentrations. To great effect. The results (800 casualties in the game, 1,000 in real life)are quite similar at almost the exact same time of the the war. To indicate the Allies were not capable of doing this or the game engine is borked is just plain wrong. It happened...historical events cited. Why not just make a house rule that Japan can object to any turn it does not like and the Allied player must be forced to withdraw the turn and never use the successful method again because it hurt the Japanese players feelings.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:41 am
by JohnDillworth
I'd be extermely pleased and interested if anyone could bring in additional information and sources regarding this subject
Cited
4EB Bombardment July 1944
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:05 am
by Panther Bait
A couple of thoughts/points/questions:
1. The game report of 800 casualties is mostly flavor/fluff, devices/squads are what really matters. What was the actual damage (destroyed and/or disabled) devices/squads? The raids at Caen/St Lo didn't necessarily kill a lot of Germans, but they caused massive disruption (and probably what would be considered disabled squads in AE). Was recently re-reading Steel Inferno, and Michael Reynolds has some good descriptions of the raids. I am not sure if Normandy would be considered open terrain either, maybe though.
2. Even if one particular unit did most/all of the damage, you can't really parse that out as unrealistic. I think the game engine sort of "averages out" combat results, some attackers do a lot of damage, others do nothing. You need to look at the whole raid size to judge the effect. Unless you're seeing a single raid of 36 (no other planes) getting the same results raid after raid, I wouldn't claim foul automatically.
3. In game terms, the fortification level at Monte Cassino (although this might be more like terrain than forts) and Iwo Jima were probably higher than a 3 or 4. Caen/St Lo are probably more representative of level 3-4 fortifications.
Those are my thoughts. At some level though, the others have a point that there is a counter, fighters and AAA and not fighting in open terrain. If you need your limited AAA assets elsewhere or don't want throw fighters in the meat grinder, those are choices, not flaws in the game engine.
Mike
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:13 am
by Lowpe
ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
This post is worthless without the combat replay. Heck, one of those targets is clear terrain.
Sorry, I don't have any replays for Operation Cobra. It happened in real life, not in a game. That's my point. The results John are seeing are absolutely historical. They represent what happened in real life. To call them "horse caca" is just sour grapes. 4EB were used in real life against troop concentrations. To great effect. The results (800 casualties in the game, 1,000 in real life)are quite similar at almost the exact same time of the the war. To indicate the Allies were not capable of doing this or the game engine is borked is just plain wrong. It happened...historical events cited. Why not just make a house rule that Japan can object to any turn it does not like and the Allied player must be forced to withdraw the turn and never use the successful method again because it hurt the Japanese players feelings.
John, my post is to the other John.[:D]
There are counters to heavy bombing in the game....but without the combat report we have no clue as to what John availed himself of -- perhaps he has a point. There is not enough information to make a judgement.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:20 am
by adarbrauner
3. In game terms, the fortification level at Monte Cassino (although this might be more like terrain than forts) and Iwo Jima were probably higher than a 3 or 4. Caen/St Lo are probably more representative of level 3-4 fortifications.
If the emplacements at Iwo Jimo were immune to the highest calibers of the navy, so then it should be rightously thought of a very high "fortification level". 6? 7? more?
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:29 am
by JohnDillworth
John, my post is to the other John.
Chippy attitude withdrawn. I'm trapped in the house in a blizzard and it is way to early to dip into all that extra win I bought
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:02 am
by Bearcat2
Hard to kill Germans at Monte Cassino when there were no Germans at the Abbey when they bombed it with the B-17's on 2/15/44, they did manage to kill a couple of hundred Italians seeking refuge at the Abbey. The US dropped leaflets telling the people that they were going to bomb the area; the civilians were given a safe passage through German lines, unfortunately for the Italians in the Abbey; it was for the 16th day after they bombed the Abbey.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:19 am
by adarbrauner
ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
I'd be extermely pleased and interested if anyone could bring in additional information and sources regarding this subject
Cited
4EB Bombardment July 1944
Good readings!
If so, the game should provide for some friendly casualties as well deriving from carpet bombing [;)]
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:27 am
by Panther Bait
ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
3. In game terms, the fortification level at Monte Cassino (although this might be more like terrain than forts) and Iwo Jima were probably higher than a 3 or 4. Caen/St Lo are probably more representative of level 3-4 fortifications.
If the emplacements at Iwo Jimo were immune to the highest calibers of the navy, so then it should be rightously thought of a very high "fortification level". 6? 7? more?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a good description of what the various fort levels actually mean, but the forts at Iwo Jima included a lot of heavily reinforced concrete structures and other fortifications built deep into native rock. That would seem to me to qualify for at least 6 or 7, probably even higher.
Mike
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:16 pm
by Lecivius
With a nod to historical bombing results vs. in game results, one needs to keep both sides in mind. I think that point might be missed here.
Historically, 4E's were used, albeit in limited operations, for tactical as opposed to strategic purposes. In the Pacific, these tactical operations were used more, but typically with fewer aircraft, just due to the lack of air-frames. In game, they are used against troop concentrations to devastating effect. However, also in game, the Japanese do have counters to this not available in real life. It IS a game, after all.
Flip side.
Historically, the Japanese used their 2E's to devastating effect early in the war. I would point out, and have posted on these forums, the dichotomy of the effect of 2E torpedo bombers against shipping in game terms as opposed to historical terms. Japanese 2E's flew with no, to very poor, fighter opposition early in the war. This contributed to their success in bombing. There were only a few squadrons of 2E's trained for torpedo attack. Historically, in the early years the Japanese had a 9-14% success rate in 2E torpedo attacks. In game, the are truly feared, with a 55-65% success rate.
My point being, there are trade off's. Your 2E torpedo attack results are simply not historical. The 4E's used by the allies is not truly historical. Nerfing one, would mean accepting limitations on the other.
I can appreciate your not liking to get smacked around. No one playing the allies likes it either, in the first half of the game. Ponder what you need to do, and use your counters as best you can. People here are always willing to offer suggestions to help (someone ALWAYS has an opinion...even me [:'(] )
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:23 pm
by Bearcat2
The obvious Japanese counter to allied bombers is AAA and fighters
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:32 pm
by JohnDillworth
The 4E's used by the allies is not truly historical
As pointed out above with historical citation it was absolutely historical. It happened. These are not "alternative facts". 4EB were successfully used by the allies against the Axis in large numbers at almost exactly the same time frame as the game with almost identical results. Facts are stubborn things indeed
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:11 pm
by Lecivius
ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
The 4E's used by the allies is not truly historical
As pointed out above with historical citation it was absolutely historical. It happened. These are not "alternative facts". 4EB were successfully used by the allies against the Axis in large numbers at almost exactly the same time frame as the game with almost identical results. Facts are stubborn things indeed
I agree completely. Heavy bombers were used, and on multiple occasions in both theaters. And usually with devastating effect. But not to the degree available 'in game'. As I said, this is a game. Things are a bit distorted, and on both sides.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:17 pm
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
With a nod to historical bombing results vs. in game results, one needs to keep both sides in mind. I think that point might be missed here.
Historically, 4E's were used, albeit in limited operations, for tactical as opposed to strategic purposes. In the Pacific, these tactical operations were used more, but typically with fewer aircraft, just due to the lack of air-frames. In game, they are used against troop concentrations to devastating effect. However, also in game, the Japanese do have counters to this not available in real life. It IS a game, after all.
Flip side.
Historically, the Japanese used their 2E's to devastating effect early in the war. I would point out, and have posted on these forums, the dichotomy of the effect of 2E torpedo bombers against shipping in game terms as opposed to historical terms. Japanese 2E's flew with no, to very poor, fighter opposition early in the war. This contributed to their success in bombing. There were only a few squadrons of 2E's trained for torpedo attack. Historically, in the early years the Japanese had a 9-14% success rate in 2E torpedo attacks. In game, the are truly feared, with a 55-65% success rate.
My point being, there are trade off's. Your 2E torpedo attack results are simply not historical. The 4E's used by the allies is not truly historical. Nerfing one, would mean accepting limitations on the other.
I can appreciate your not liking to get smacked around. No one playing the allies likes it either, in the first half of the game. Ponder what you need to do, and use your counters as best you can. People here are always willing to offer suggestions to help (someone ALWAYS has an opinion...even me [:'(] )
The Japanese player can (and does) use massive land based bomber attacks to spearhead his ground offensives. This happens all through 1942 and well into 1943. My opponent is not shy about using 200-300 bombers in one massed attack. The effect is devastating and almost guarantees that the defending units will be too disrupted to resist a land attack. In reality, after the first six months of the war-Japanese land based bombers attacks became very impotent in any theater but China. Even by the Guadacanal campaign the Japanese were bombing at 20,000 feet and not doing it very well. Don't get me started about the magic of every Nell and Betty being torpedo capable and trained.
Sooo....I think that there is a definitive imbalance for the Japanese in the first two years with that swinging to the Allies in the last two years. It ain't exactly right, but it works out.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:12 pm
by Alpha77
Strange discussion, if any commander has masses of bombers available and ready to fly why would he not use them to bomb troops LOL
However if really only 36 B24s caused these massive losses it might be overboard, but as someone pointed out, we have not enough info (yet) to judge.
As for Monte Casino not sure if this would represent forts, this was an middle aged abey, right ? Sure the Germans did some more work to fortify, but basically it was masonry not steel/concrete. And from what I recall yes, the masonry was put to rubble quite a bit, which assisted quite a bit to defenders iirc [:'(] Same like in WW1 when arty fire assists putting shell holes, where soldiers find some shelter in no mans land
RE: May 1944
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:36 pm
by Bif1961
One problem was in the Pacific was target identification, you can't bomb accurately what you can't find. Bombing targets in a jungle environment is nearly impossible as the jungle hides the target. The Allies actually employed a form of area bombing and it was far more miss than hit. Add in weather and short time over target and it means the chance of a meaningful strike is very limited.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:50 am
by John 3rd
Haven't had to read all the Posts fellas. Knew my rant from last night would touch off the inevitable 'Cobra' comparisons.
My Mother-in-Law fell this evening and has broken her neck. Luckily the spinal cord appears to be good but she is currently in emergency surgery. This Posting is not meant to derail the conversation--especially since I want to read it!--just needed to explain why I wasn't on and probably won't be until later tomorrow.
Please continue the discussion!
RE: May 1944
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:54 am
by Lowpe
I don't think we can carry on a discussion about a game after that horrendous news.
Here is hoping and praying for a recovery.
RE: May 1944
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:12 am
by Lecivius
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
I don't think we can carry on a discussion about a game after that horrendous news.
Here is hoping and praying for a recovery.
Agreed
RE: May 1944
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:05 pm
by pws1225
Terrible news. I hope all goes well and that her recovery will be swift.