Help with B29s!

[JocMeister]

Forum hiccup.

Double post...

[LoBaron]

Let me get this straight: You realized this is a game - and not a 1:1 recreation of WWII - by you finding out the Japanese players
do not autocollapse and implode in ´44?

WitP AE it is no simulation of WWII, but I thought this was obvious. With player decisions it can´t be.

It is a simulation of "what ifs", based on historical (or as close to historical as possible with the current engine) capabilities
and skills of individual units and devices, leaders, terrain,...but modified by hindsight, lack of a political aspect, and by such
minor facts as players not being responsible for the pixel lifes of their soldiers - which often leads to pretty hilarious decisions.

Your personal wish for "what ifs" would require your opponent to repeat the historical errors Japan made in the war, from lack of
coordination between army and navy to the failure to establish a working pilot training programme. I doubt such a game would be fun or
at all interesting. This is not something the Japanese were not capable of. Its just, they did not realize it was required to wage
war. Thats a difference.


PS: I never understood the AFB/JFB whiner discussion and in general ignore it. If you haven´t played both sides, more so if you lack deep knowledge
on the game, you usually have no idea what you are talking about.

Those few who did play both sides in PBEM, GreyJoy is a good recent example of such a player, quickly realize what the true difficulties for
each side are. Those players usually get very modest with their complaints about the other sides´ capabilities. And in general rise to be very good
players...

[GreyJoy]

Cannot but agree. You need to play both sides. And when you switch from the allies to the japs, i can assure you that you will really understand how well this game is balanced

[JocMeister]

Sigh...[8|]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Let me get this straight: You realized this is a game - and not a 1:1 recreation of WWII - by you finding out the Japanese players do not autocollapse and implode in ´44?

No?

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
WitP AE it is no simulation of WWII, but I thought this was obvious. With player decisions it can´t be. It is a simulation of "what ifs", based on historical (or as close to historical as possible with the current engine) capabilities and skills of individual units and devices, leaders, terrain,...but modified by hindsight, lack of a political aspect, and by such minor facts as players not being responsible for the pixel lifes of their soldiers - which often leads to pretty hilarious decisions.

Your personal wish for "what ifs" would require your opponent to repeat the historical errors Japan made in the war, from lack of coordination between army and navy to the failure to establish a working pilot training programme. I doubt such a game would be fun or at all interesting. This is not something the Japanese were not capable of. Its just, they did not realize it was required to wage war. Thats a difference.

You got all that from what I wrote? Where did I write I personally wanted to play such a game? I actually said kind of the opposite if you re-read what I wrote. I simply speculated that if Japan is given the historical restraints we might actually see an outcome that is not too far off from the real war. Meaning the devs perhaps got the game pretty spot on. This I thought would be very interesting to read/see in an AAR. I still do.

Regarding the AFB/JFB comment I simply wrote that BOTH sides tend to draw comparisons to the real war despite it being a game with little attachment to the real war (as we already have established):

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Not intending this as a JFB/AFB thing but rather a reflection on how quickly both sides draws comparisons with the real war.

You have been quite friendly and helpful in the past. Don´t know where your response came from. But I would appreciate in the future that if you find something I write unclear that you could ask me for clarification instead of drawing your own conclusions and then write what I perceive as a quite aggressive post?

It may be my own fault for writing quite hastily (I always do). I hope my intention with the post is now clear. I have no desire to argue and I can´t understand why almost every topic on this forum ends in people arguing.

[LoBaron]

I simply speculated that if Japan is given the historical restraints we might actually see an outcome that
is not too far off from the real war.

Wrong.

If you THINK a bit beyond what you type, you will realize that this will not be the case. Hindsight makes it impossible.
Japan would get crushed would long before VJ day, standing much less chance of success than the Japanese did historically.

Regarding the AFB/JFB comment I simply wrote that BOTH sides tend to draw comparisons to the real war

Which would be perfectly legal, if done correctly. Something I explained in my above post.

But in truth, you wrote:

As someone wrote in CRs AAR it quite funny how some Japanese players make claims on how unhistorical an allied advance in Burma is while they themselves play a Japanese side almost completely stripped of all the historical restraints Japan suffered from.

which is quite different. Because it is an AFB/JFB thing. What was the point you were trying to make exactly, except that sometimes people complain without thinking first?


I get sarcastic if obviously intelligent people don´t think things through to the end before formulating an opinion or requesting sth, without being prepared that
someone can tell them that they are wrong.

I have neither the patience nor the motivation to interprete if what you write is different from what you want to say. If you post hastily but mean different, use more
time to post. And if you don´t like responses to your opinions, that could be considered as criticizm, or don´t want to hear that what you believe in might be wrong,
then don´t post at all. Otherwise deal with it. Pretty easy, no?

Hope that wasn´t too aggressive...

[JocMeister]

I was clear enough in my first post. The comment about writing hasty was written as a courtesy.

Thank you for the tip on the book.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a wild guess with not enough data, but I dont see anything too surprising. And it has less to do with your own units than
with the B-29 crews.

It is def skill that hurts attacking fighters. Def skill works two ways, because it improves chance to kill/damage opposing fighters,
and this is logically followed by less fighters attacking every round, less repeated attacks by those still attacking, and lower morale
and higher fatigue on average. Over the time of the battle this has an extremely strong cumulative effect.

The units arriving with B-29s have close to no def skill (and exp avg in the med 30s). On the contrary, other units using
heavies usually already had a lot of time to up their stats.

Most of my veteran heavies already hit or have long passed the 70exp/65-70 def skill mark, the B-29 crews are completely green in
comparision...

I guess I have to assume he's using relatively poor pilots in the B-29s then? Seems very unlike Jocke who hold almost a 2:1 advantage in the air war currently and is usually meticulous about his air settings and pilots from what I can tell.

Even in 42 with mediocre pilots and B-17Ds he was hitting more zeros than that strike of B-29s hit. I most likely won't know until much later when I can read his AAR what happened, but from my side it's odd.

[LoBaron]

Yes, I said it was a wild guess. But there are only few alternative explanations.

Those other explanations would be:

1) It was simply a very bad day for the B-29s, in addition to a good one for your excellent leader.
2) The mvr of only 2 has some kind of impact on how easy the bombers are to hit (as compared to 7 on B24s) - I tend to rule that out, as to my best knowledge bombers mvr is only used for AAA calc)
3) There is a problem with the way the game engine handles turret guns (TT/BT), which would be most evident on the B29s, as the only non-turret mounted
gun the B29 has is the rear facing MG, whereas the B24s have side, front, and rear facing guns without turrets). If the last is true it might be a bug.

1) is possible
2) is pretty improbable
3) is possible, but personally I would expect such a bug to already have been identified long ago, if it existed.

So, from a probabilistic pov I would explain it with comparably low pilot quality, as it simply the easiest. The only prerequisite
would be that Jocke did not exchange the whole (green) pilot contingent of his B-29s before staging the attack. Only he will be able to tell you...

That does obviousely not rule out that one of the other explanations turns out correct.

[Crackaces]

3) is possible, but personally I would expect such a bug to already have been identified long ago, if it existed.

That premise might be argued by the notion not a lot of games with public AAR's have involved B-29's .. many games end by SCLS ....

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes, I said it was a wild guess. But there are only few alternative explanations.

Those other explanations would be:

1) It was simply a very bad day for the B-29s, in addition to a good one for your excellent leader.
2) The mvr of only 2 has some kind of impact on how easy the bombers are to hit (as compared to 7 on B24s) - I tend to rule that out, as to my best knowledge bombers mvr is only used for AAA calc)
3) There is a problem with the way the game engine handles turret guns (TT/BT), which would be most evident on the B29s, as the only non-turret mounted
gun the B29 has is the rear facing MG, whereas the B24s have side, front, and rear facing guns without turrets). If the last is true it might be a bug.

1) is possible
2) is pretty improbable
3) is possible, but personally I would expect such a bug to already have been identified long ago, if it existed.

So, from a probabilistic pov I would explain it with comparably low pilot quality, as it simply the easiest. The only prerequisite
would be that Jocke did not exchange the whole (green) pilot contingent of his B-29s before staging the attack. Only he will be able to tell you...

That does obviousely not rule out that one of the other explanations turns out correct.

Thanks for the options. Didn't think about maneuver.

As for option 3, I would think so as well, but I've been advised that the B-25D-1 using all of it's forward facing strafing guns in defense is 'known' and essentially unchangeable, so some issue with the B-29 guns could be similar.

It might be a while before I find anything else out in game as now he's bombing at night anyway.

[artuitus_slith]

Just my opinion, but oil isn't the right target regardless. Instead hit the refineries. Destroying Japan's ability to refine the oil into useful products (supply and fuel) is a lot more efficient than hitting the oil, especially at this point in the game. Japan likely has plenty of surplus oil sitting around waiting to be refined, but that oil becomes useless if you destroy his ability to refine it into something useful. I imagine your opponent isn't going to bother repairing oil hits, but probably will repair refineries.

I'd almost be willing to trade 30 B-29s for 190+ refinery hits, since after 6 months or so of raids you could conceivable bring Japan's fuel making abilities to a grinding halt, and with it the ability of Japan to continue fighting effectively. Combined with raids on HI, you could force him to rely exclusively on reserves of supplies, making your job much easier.

[LoBaron]

I agree that refineries are the bottleneck target, and hitting oil in ´44 usually does not harm the Japanese industry that much - except for VP for those who care.

Still, depending on the situation (range, CAP & AAA concentrations) you have to hit what you can hit. Refineries are much less distributed on the HI as are other industrial targets. If you can hit em without much trouble, great, if you cannot, hit something else. The nice thing about being in range of the HI is, there are a LOT of targets of opportunity.