Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Odin
Jup...but it seems this results showed up only if the target base is not defended by AA-units...with these units losses are far lower.

Yep, but still. Were these poor japs piled on each another?
Even on march ( foot ) troops can disperse fast and seek cover.
24 Wildcats armed with MG´s only killing day after day hundreds of troops. Even the dumbest grunt would start thinking about own sweet foxhole and would dig it....



Arto

This kind of carnage has to be fixed.

Originally posted by Drex
This kind of carnage has to be fixed.

The results achieved by air power against ground troops and
their equipment make a mockery of the entire game. The Air
Force attempted to prove this case Viet Nam (dropping more
tonnage than in ALL of WW II) and failed miserably. If MATRIX
can't get this nonsense under control there is NO REASON to
ever buy another of their products as they will have proved themselves both inept and incompetent. Sorry guys, but it's the
truth..., if you can't get the basics right, all the "bells and whistles" in the world won't save the product.

Mr. Frag:Some additional comments regarding Ploesti.The lead ship,carrying the lead navigator,etc., crashed into the sea prior
to reaching the enemy coast. The deputy took over. After penetrating the enemy coast, the "new" lead navigator ordered
an incorrect change in course. Some groups followed the "new" lead ship. and others, knowing the heading was wrong, flew the route to target, as briefed. The ships that followed the "new" lead, ended up flying directly over downtown Bucharest, thus
alerting the defenses and losing tactical surprise. The two
formations hit the target on almost reciprocal headings. Some
targets were hit by groups not assigned to them,some were not hit at all, and some were bombed as briefed. A total SNAFU. Ploesti, by the end of the war, was responsible for the highest
rate of American bomber losses, for a single target. After this raid,
I don't think Ploesti was bombed again till '44, after the establishment of 15th AF in Italy.

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
The results achieved by air power against ground troops and
their equipment make a mockery of the entire game. The Air
Force attempted to prove this case Viet Nam (dropping more
tonnage than in ALL of WW II) and failed miserably. If MATRIX
can't get this nonsense under control there is NO REASON to
ever buy another of their products as they will have proved themselves both inept and incompetent. Sorry guys, but it's the
truth..., if you can't get the basics right, all the "bells and whistles" in the world won't save the product.

Come on Mike, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes this is serious but I'm positive Matrix will deal with this and I will endure the bug if only because it works both ways.

Mike, I agree that based on some of the AARs posted showing ground attack results, that this needs to be addressed. I do think
that using Viet Nam as support is not entirely accurate. The tonnage you mentioned includes all bombs dropped, both North
and South. From all accounts I know of, ground support missions, were, in the main, effective and were probably the reason Khe Sahn(sp?) was held. I think some differentiation is in order. On
the flip side, I could point to Gulf 1/2.

Navman, I know things went wrong. This is normal anytime one tries to create a large raid involving multiple groups from different fields all going after the same target. I was just pointing out that if UV had somewhat realisic loss rates on aircraft flying low attacks, folks would be a lot happier. The B-24's used were a pretty good aircraft having better range and bigger bomb loads and roughly the same durability as the B-17's. Couple to this a better climb rate (which directly relates to low level survival).

I don't understand why people want their planes to be magically unstoppable. I do not argue the fact that B-17's were rather good at shooting down A6M's. This is precisely why they were stolen and put on naval search duties. While I do not expect A6M's to fair particularly well against them, I certainly do expect AA batteries to eat them up as they are rather slow flying targets that have to pretty much fly in a straight line to drop their bombs.

AA batteries in UV seem to me to be decoration, throwing 4 squadrons of B-17's at Rabaul @6000 feet resulted in a single B-17 being lost. I do not know whether this is a problem with code from the fighter adjustment that bled through into other areas, but right now, planes are magic. I'm not into science fiction, I prefer wargames

Originally posted by Drex
Come on Mike, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes this is serious but I'm positive Matrix will deal with this and I will endure the bug if only because it works both ways.

The problem is that MATRIX has delt with this in at least one
of the many patches to UV. The results pertsajakilu cited were
from the supposedly "fixed" version---and 24 F3F's killed over
1000 troops in a single sweep!! That's an imbicilic occurance
and result. And Matrix considers UV to be a "finished product"
in the sense that they plan no more patches. If you bought a
chess set and found it had no queens, would you "endure it
because it works both ways"? Of course not---you would demand
your money back, or a new (and complete) set!

One of the major strategic decisions made in the Pacific War
was to bypass large centers of Japanese resistance like Rabaul
or Truk. According to MATRIX, that was a silly decision, as a few
weeks of straffing by fighter groups would have killed all 100,000
Japanese there and left us a nice base! It doesn't "work both
ways" either. The US air power will grow steadily during the war,
leaving the Japanese only their fanatical infantry as a means of
denying American access to vital areas. With this MAJOR FLAW
in the system, Chiteng's "B-17 fixation" becomes a realistic
worry---only it's every kind of US aircraft that is the threat. Why
fight for Iwo Jima when MATRIX says you can bomb and straff the
garrison out of existance? (The Army Air Force tried for a month
before the landings, and the Navy for several days, to do this---
and any veteran Marine can tell you how successful the effort was).

This problem can be a real game breaker, and we need MATRIX
to see and recognize that..., AND PROVE THEY CAN FIX IT!! They
haven't done that yet, so I'll stand by my original statement.

Just for fun:

I moved the 4 starting B-17 groups to PM, filled them up to full strength and relocated every single AA unit Japan has or will ever get into Rabaul.

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 43

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 8 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 34 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 130
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 46

Actual real losses: 14 B-17

Variation:

Replaced B-17's with B-24's

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 33

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator x 7 destroyed
B-24D Liberator x 29 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 182
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 39

Actual real losses: 15 B-24D

replaced B-24's with Hudsons which is an a paper aircraft and they still did not get shot down at a reasonable rate.

These all happened at 6000 feet.

Shifting back to B-17's at 100 feet, exactly as above:

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 42

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 10 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 39 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 134

Airbase hits 13
Runway hits 50

Actual real losses: 28 B-17

This was against 874 AA guns of various sizes located in a fortification 9 base (fully supported, fully supplied).

Now, someone want to tell me why any planes actually lived?

Mr.Frag:I agree with you. I was just commenting on Ploesti, UV
issues aside. I too want accuracy. I think we are on the same page, literally and figuratively. on this. For my own part, I seem not to be using aircraft to the same extent as others do. To
repeat, I agree with you that accuracy as far as unit capabilities
are concerned should be the building block for all that comes after. As far as the B-24 vs B-17 comparison, I don't think that one
will ever be resolved. It's been going on for over 50 yrs.

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
The problem is that MATRIX has delt with this in at least one
of the many patches to UV. The results pertsajakilu cited were
from the supposedly "fixed" version---and 24 F3F's killed over
1000 troops in a single sweep!! That's an imbicilic occurance
and result. And Matrix considers UV to be a "finished product"
in the sense that they plan no more patches. If you bought a
chess set and found it had no queens, would you "endure it
because it works both ways"? Of course not---you would demand
your money back, or a new (and complete) set!

One of the major strategic decisions made in the Pacific War
was to bypass large centers of Japanese resistance like Rabaul
or Truk. According to MATRIX, that was a silly decision, as a few
weeks of straffing by fighter groups would have killed all 100,000
Japanese there and left us a nice base! It doesn't "work both
ways" either. The US air power will grow steadily during the war,
leaving the Japanese only their fanatical infantry as a means of
denying American access to vital areas. With this MAJOR FLAW
in the system, Chiteng's "B-17 fixation" becomes a realistic
worry---only it's every kind of US aircraft that is the threat. Why
fight for Iwo Jima when MATRIX says you can bomb and straff the
garrison out of existance? (The Army Air Force tried for a month
before the landings, and the Navy for several days, to do this---
and any veteran Marine can tell you how successful the effort was).

This problem can be a real game breaker, and we need MATRIX
to see and recognize that..., AND PROVE THEY CAN FIX IT!! They
haven't done that yet, so I'll stand by my original statement.

i have to agree that horrendous results have been shown with these air attacks as I have experienced them myself. I'm just saying that Matrix will/must deal with them. Until then I will continue playing my games - I am winning some and am losing some.