Matrix Games Forums

57 DB 110 Cas
31 DB 84 Cas
111 Liberators/36 B-29/28 2EB 440 Cas
25 DB 53 Cas
15 DB 29 cas
60 Liberators 334 Cas
30 Lib/9 B-29/9 2EB 169 Cas
12 B-29 35 Cas
11 Lib/3 B-29/3 A-20 38 Cas
6 Lib/12 2EB 59 Cas
...fourteen more strikes followed.

When I sent the turn to Dan my simple note was "OK. B-29s on close air ground support??!! Makes sense."

ORIGINAL: obvert
The one limitation that leads to 4Es being used so much to support ground troops is the inability of the game to show the effectiveness of F/FB in strafing and close support rocket and bomb strikes. This part of the game just isn't viable on a large scale, as it was in the war, so the 4Es take that role.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: obvert
The one limitation that leads to 4Es being used so much to support ground troops is the inability of the game to show the effectiveness of F/FB in strafing and close support rocket and bomb strikes. This part of the game just isn't viable on a large scale, as it was in the war, so the 4Es take that role.

I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: obvert
The one limitation that leads to 4Es being used so much to support ground troops is the inability of the game to show the effectiveness of F/FB in strafing and close support rocket and bomb strikes. This part of the game just isn't viable on a large scale, as it was in the war, so the 4Es take that role.

I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

Strafing against ground troops has negligible impact. There are no air launched rockets or napalm in game.

The demand issue is there, yes, but that is specific to the conditions of game, especially PDU-ON and of course non-historical OOB scenarios with the added ability of the player to R & D airframes well ahead of their historical arrival dates.

I self-imposed an HR against 4E ground bombing in my previous Allied game against Greyjoy because I wanted to see what the 2E, FB and some fighters would do. You'll never use the P-47s as they were in the war for many reasons, not the least that the Japanese have a wildy different OOB, service capability and inter-service coordination ability in the air war than they did historically. I play Japan as you know and intimately understand the huge advantages a Japanese player has even in a stock game over historical. Japan did not and could not have made 250-400 Tojos per month in 42, 300-400 George/Jack per month in 43-45 and 300 Franks per month in 43-45.

So the P-47, at less than 1,200 production in 43-44 (pre-N version) simply can't keep up unitl the P-51 and Corsairs start to come in numbers mid-late 44.

In my experience the FBs and attack bombers can get by with low levels runs against lightly defended troops, but with decent AA in hex, especially in DBB scenarios, but even late patch stock really, the losses are heavy compared to the impact.

With certain CAP settings (low layered CAP) even the P-47 struggles to match Japanese 2nd and 3rd gen fighters, so it's also hard to punch a hole the FB or 2E can get through, but 4E will actually get through to target even in the face of losses. I was happy in that game to lose 300 airframes in a days battle over Rabaul in 43 just to get the fields almost closed and get the defenders worn out so that after a few more turns (of more losses) I would finally have air supremacy.

Historically fighters would have also been there straffing fields, hitting supply dumps, targeting specific logistical support. In game it just doesn't work that way.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Agree with that. Think A2A is the far more important element.

The thing that gets me is in that last set of attacks I posted, Dan used nearly 70 B-29, 250 Liberators, but only 125 or so 2EB. Where are they? Should have them by the bucket and they were MEANT to be used tactically. Using 4-500 of those things would be horrific while the heavies bombed the heck out of AFs, Ports, and Industry.

The more I tend to think about this the better I like it. For over a month now those heavies could have been used to crush Fort construction in Formosa, Okinawa, or the other bases I am feverishly trying to build up. This doesn't include any Industry/Oil attack of which there have been NONE.

Perhaps it is a blessing in some ways but I really, truly dislike it.

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I think if you want to see the airframes used more realistically, then you have to play Scen 1 with PDU off.

As long as the Japanese can crank out a billion fighters a month with exp 70+ pilots thanks to "training" missions in China... the Allies have to counter, and the counter is to use every available airframe for air superiority.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



I get your suggested point and crsutton's counterpoint. But is this a question of 'inability of the game' or 'just the way things work out'? I've not seen many late war games where Allied players really-o truly-o give ground attack FBs precedence. The P-47s are worth their weight in gold in the air war in most AARs I've seen. I've not seen a convincing Allied effort to separate out the heavier FBs for airfield strafing / rocket attacks as it's usually 'all hands on deck' for capable A2A airframes.

So, until I'm convinced that mass application of Allied FB firepower has been tried and universally recognized as incapable, I really can't say that it's a game 'inability' so much as a supply:demand issue. Most players would probably commit to air superiority and neutralizing the enemy's A2A options, so it kind of makes it their choice for why FBs / ground attack isn't as effective as IRL.

Strafing against ground troops has negligible impact. There are no air launched rockets or napalm in game.

The demand issue is there, yes, but that is specific to the conditions of game, especially PDU-ON and of course non-historical OOB scenarios with the added ability of the player to R & D airframes well ahead of their historical arrival dates.

I self-imposed an HR against 4E ground bombing in my previous Allied game against Greyjoy because I wanted to see what the 2E, FB and some fighters would do. You'll never use the P-47s as they were in the war for many reasons, not the least that the Japanese have a wildy different OOB, service capability and inter-service coordination ability in the air war than they did historically. I play Japan as you know and intimately understand the huge advantages a Japanese player has even in a stock game over historical. Japan did not and could not have made 250-400 Tojos per month in 42, 300-400 George/Jack per month in 43-45 and 300 Franks per month in 43-45.

So the P-47, at less than 1,200 production in 43-44 (pre-N version) simply can't keep up unitl the P-51 and Corsairs start to come in numbers mid-late 44.

In my experience the FBs and attack bombers can get by with low levels runs against lightly defended troops, but with decent AA in hex, especially in DBB scenarios, but even late patch stock really, the losses are heavy compared to the impact.

With certain CAP settings (low layered CAP) even the P-47 struggles to match Japanese 2nd and 3rd gen fighters, so it's also hard to punch a hole the FB or 2E can get through, but 4E will actually get through to target even in the face of losses. I was happy in that game to lose 300 airframes in a days battle over Rabaul in 43 just to get the fields almost closed and get the defenders worn out so that after a few more turns (of more losses) I would finally have air supremacy.

Historically fighters would have also been there straffing fields, hitting supply dumps, targeting specific logistical support. In game it just doesn't work that way.

What was a typical P-47 pilot's ground attack or strafe skill in your cited game, Obvert? If <70 apiece, do you think that may have had something to do with your observed inefficiency in the ground attack role?

I would venture that few Allied players spend much time training their jug pilots up on these roles to this level. They're probably too busy focusing on "Air" and "Defense". This probably compounds the perception that the game doesn't support the FB role-because of pilot skill in this disparate activity.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Agree with that. Think A2A is the far more important element.

The thing that gets me is in that last set of attacks I posted, Dan used nearly 70 B-29, 250 Liberators, but only 125 or so 2EB. Where are they? Should have them by the bucket and they were MEANT to be used tactically. Using 4-500 of those things would be horrific while the heavies bombed the heck out of AFs, Ports, and Industry.

The more I tend to think about this the better I like it. For over a month now those heavies could have been used to crush Fort construction in Formosa, Okinawa, or the other bases I am feverishly trying to build up. This doesn't include any Industry/Oil attack of which there have been NONE.

Perhaps it is a blessing in some ways but I really, truly dislike it.

You have to see from the Allied side. You have a LOT of non-historical toys, more in this Scenario than even the usual Japanese player.

He could have bombed a lot of places, and possibly should have, but the game is also psychological. Maybe he knew this would rile you up more than the other options. [:D]

It's large, well protected units in a defended hex with decent CAP in numbers that are the problem. One of the tactics of the Allies using 2E and FB and F strafers was to come in low to avoid early warning and get the jump on enemy positions. This worked. It does in game. AA is always awake and ready!

Have enlisted the Judy and Jill aircrew to attack SS. Currently flying at 4,000 Ft, Max Range, all directions, and ASW @ 50%, Search 20%, and Rest 30%.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I will be the first.[;)]

Formosa is not strongly held with only 3 divisions. If all three divisions are in on hex, then that hex is strongly held.

Not a huge concentration of Allied subs...sometimes that can point to an invasion spot.

Ishigaki looks like low hanging fruit. The island to the east I believe can be built to size 7. The islands around Okinawa can be built to size 6. Take those and boom you are cut in half and will never get anything west of the line back except for subs and plane transported troops.

You are sending a division to Borneo? Isn't that a POW camp now? I guess you might be able to fly it out long range somewhere, but really?


What makes you think the Kuriles are off the invasion list now? Allies are coming thru Luzon to threaten Formosa, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Okinawa, Ishigaki, Daito. Makes sense they also have a northern vector threatening Hokkaido.

What is Soc Trang? A runway 2, port 2? At some point the Allies will realize they don't need to mass everything behind the Deathstar and really accelerate their forward moves.

If you have to understand the huge impact sigint provides the Allies. They in effect know all of your ground troop placements. You have no secrets there.

Why expose the KB? What does that accomplish but remove doubt from the Allies? Save it for when you can hit the invasion forces with a combined land air attack. I hope you have a 1000+ kamikazes ready to move at a minutes notice!