What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: ADavidB
The bug fixes and the enhancements are integrated into the patches. You can't choose which you take.
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: ADavidB
The bug fixes and the enhancements are integrated into the patches. You can't choose which you take.
You are 100% right on this. One reason I say time and time again there should be a "toggle" switch on everything in the game. Like the allied coordination rule for example. That way people can customize it as they see fit.
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
With all due respect, this game isnt a historical representation of anything. Its a game, and any game should be winnable by either side.
As for people that play just against the AI, those are the people that should be screaming the loudest for "play balance". I mean seriously what challenge is this game vs the AI? I have seen post after post the stupid things the AI does in the game. You cant for 1 second tell me that these people are satisified with historical accuracy when the AI plays like it does.
I would hazard a guess that most of these "silent" 80% dont play the game after the first few attempts and quite a few likely have never even patched the game once.
ORIGINAL: dereck
Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.
And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.
ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.
The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!
But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.
And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.
ORIGINAL: dereck
Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.
And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.
ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.
The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!
But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.
And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.
The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!
On June 5, the Superforts made their first bombing attack, against the rail yards at Bangkok. Balky engines and bad weather conspired to cripple the mission. Only eighteen bombs hit the target. Not a good start.
Washington continued to pressure General Wolfe, CO of XX Bomber Command, to attack Japan itself by the middle of the month. On the night of June 14-15, ninety-two B-29's took off from staging bases in China, to strike at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata on Kyushu - a vital target that turned out a quarter of Japan's rolled steel. The diminishing number of bombers at each stage of the mission illustrates the problems inherent in Operation Matterhorn:
92 bombers left India.
79 reached the staging bases in China.
75 took off from the bases.
68 left China, the others aborted after take-off.
47 reached the target at Yawata.
15 bombed visually; 32 bombed by radar due to the weather.
One bomb hit the target!
Despite the failure of the raid in material damage, the press hailed it as a great victory; it was the first American bombing raid to hit Japan since the Doolittle Raid in April, 1942.
The Matterhorn raids continued. Eighteen bombers hit Japanes cities on July 7. Two days later, 72 Superforts were launched against a steel plant in Manchuria. More ineffective raids were staged in August.
General Curtis LeMay, only 38 years old, arrived on August 29, to head up XX Bomber Command. A cigar-chomping tough guy, LeMay shook things up. He increased training and mission frequency; he re-organized the flights into 12-plane boxes; he introduced the 'lead bomber' concept; and he re-organized the Bomb Groups. Raids continued through the fall, hampered by supply problems and more effective Japanese air defenses. By the end of 1944, 147 Superfortresses had been lost to enemy guns and to accidents. Operation Matterhorn wasn't working and it was phased out.
In the summer of 1944, the Marianas were secured and airfields were quickly built. XXI Bomber Command was organized for the Marianas B-29 operations. After the planes were brought in, the crews trained, and some preliminary raids, 111 Superforts bombed the Nakajima Aircraft Company's Musashi engine plant near Tokyo on November 20, 1944. Largely ineffective raids continued against the Musashi plant and the Mitsubishi engine plant at Nagoya through the end of the year.
Once again the Joint Chiefs called in Curtis LeMay to take over. He had analyzed the Japanese economy and focused on its dependence on small cottage industries spread throughout the large cities. Since the previous afforts at high-level precision, daylight bombing of specific targets had failed, LeMay instead proposed to burn out the Japanese cities entirely, destroying the critical industries (and the civilian population) in the process. (Not exactly the way we wage war now, where every errant bomb that hits an Afghan camel must be accounted for.)
LeMay developed a radically different approach. First, the bombers would carry incendiary, rather than high explosive, bombs. To save fuel and maximize the bomb load, the guns were stripped out, the Superforts would fly at 5,000 (instead of 30,000) feet, and each plane would fly directly to the target (no more circling and joining up in formation). These allowed each Superfort to carry about seven tons of M69 incendiary bombs. Lastly, they would go at night, since precision was no longer required and because Japanese night fighter forces were not very good.
The results were devastating. On the night of March 9-10, 279 B-29's bombed Tokyo. A huge firestorm resulted, sixteen square miles of Tokyo were reduced to ashes and 84,000 Japanese were killed. In the next week, similar, but less destructive, results were obtained in Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe. Only twenty B-29s were lost.
ORIGINAL: dereck
Christ you Jap fanboys are circling the wagons already.
And YES Apollo I do think they've been reduced too much.
ALL YOUR TESTS ARE ARE SELF-FULLFILLING TESTS in which you have an idea in mind and then go about trying to prove it.
The US B-29 was a powerful weapon which DID DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE!!!!!!!
But of course all you Jap fan boy revisionists like to change history to back up all your delusions.
And as far as your test results Apollo ... bombers - especially as many as you used - NEVER had problems hitting ships docked in port. If you had those ships at sea they'd have been safe.
ORIGINAL: dereck
ORIGINAL: Cpt.Buckmaster
ORIGINAL: dereck
Yeah because people - mostly Jap fanboys - griped and complained until the allied were nerfed even more.
Matrix, you HAD a good game but after listening to all these Jap fan boys all you've done is turned this game into a one-sided fantasy game.
Well, you might just be onto something there, smartypants ( [;)] )... but with good reason.
Any way you realistically slice it, the general outcome of the war was inevitable. Yamamoto knew this. The USN and the USAAF would become invincible (relatively speaking, of course) and it would only become a matter of ground combat to determine just how long the war would last (Atom bombs aside).
SO, put yourself in the shoes of a "Japanese Fanboy." Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a CHANCE to win? Things need to be adjusted in order for that to be possible. The whole 4-engined bomber thing is just one of the dozens (or hundreds if you ask some of the people around here! [:D] ) of things about this game that are completely historically inaccurate.
In real life, the Axis powers got completely pasted. Their cute little suckerpunch uncontested victories in 1939-1941 europe and the pacific were fun for them and all, but in the end their hemisphere-wide empires were systematically destroyed in a two or three year period.
SO, in order to make ANY WWII games fun for the "bad guys", there has to be a bunch of cheating... unless you design one that takes place in like Sept 1942 only.
[:)]
No Lieutenant, it ISN'T a good reason. You Jap fan-boys cry and complain all the time about HISTORICAL accuracy down to how many sheets of toilet paper the marines need to wipe their butts on Guadalcanal but whenever this historical accuracy would even come close to being of benefit to the allied player -- or even BEING historical -- you all circle your wagons, cry fould and shout down all the opposing views.
ORIGINAL: ADavidB
SO, put yourself in the shoes of a "Japanese Fanboy." Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a CHANCE to win? Things need to be adjusted in order for that to be possible.
Here are some "Victory Conditions" for a Japanese player in a WW II simulation:
- They reach May 1942 at or better than the historic achievements - a draw
- They reach January 1, 1943 at or better than the historical situation - a marginal victory
- They reach January 1, 1944 at or better than the historical situation - a clear victory
- They reach January 1, 1945 at or better than the historical situation - a decisive victory
- They reach August 14, 1945 at or better than the historical situation, and no atomic bombs have been dropped - a total victory
An Allied player likewise has to improve upon the historical situation or he loses on the same dates.
By "...at or better than the historical situation", I mean that the Japanese player has the same or better territorial situation and has the same or more forces, including ships, planes and troops, as the historical situation.
Thus, the "better" the Japanese player plays - taking more territory, losing fewer forces, etc. - the better the chance for a victory.
This alleviates the need to put ahistorical restrictions or enhancements on the forces of both sides.
It's too bad that the victory conditions for this game weren't designed in such a manner.
Cheers -
Dave Baranyi
ORIGINAL: Big B
A fresh thought on the thorny question of The Fairy Princess:
If B-29's are being neutered in bombing efficiancy and susceptibility to fighers and flak - could this be restored by going to the editor and simply increasing bomb payload and durability?[8|]
B
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
So, Derek, Sounds to me like you are getting the results that were historically achieved by high altitude, massed B-29 formations. Why don't you try it at night at 5000 feet?
Chez