4E bombers,greatest bug of all

[tsimmonds]

something like only 1/4 of the planes set to CAP are in the air and the rest do the area scramble routine.

This can be achieved today with a house rule limiting CAP to x%. The remainder will scramble, or not, depending on detection of the incoming strike.

As someone said before, we NEED A STACKING PENALITY

...or a house rule, strictly enforcing stacking limits?

[Gen.Hoepner]

this is nothing personal here Hoep. You just happened to be in the line of fire.

[:)] don't worry, i never take these discussions as something personal[;)]
It's like when you talk about women...you like the blondes, i prefer the brown-hair...matters of tastes[:D]

[Honda]

Funny you should mention hair[:D] (sry, couldn't resist)
On topic: it seems there's no immediate solution but a quick house rule regarding the number of planes on certain size AF.

[KDonovan]

how about a house rule limiting the number of engines per aviation support point

B17 = 4 points
B-25 = 2 points
F4F = 1 points

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

how about a house rule limiting the number of engines per aviation support point

B17 = 4 points
B-25 = 2 points
F4F = 1 points

Support points arent an issue. They are self serving. The problem (or at least in games I have seen) is people basing 600 (litterally) planes at a level 5 airfield. Then they run their 200 Betty/Nells with 140 Zeros escorting and hit an allied base thats close (or vice versa).

THAT is the problem. Overstacking for the size of the airfield, not the av support.

[KDonovan]

but according to my house rule, say you had 71st Aviation Rgt at the base with 250 aviation support points....you could only base 62 (round up to a squadren of 64) 4E bombers at the base. This would stop the stacking of three 72 plane B17 sqd at a base of 250 aviation support points. Now of course you can dig up enough Aviation Support points to get your 300 plane B17 DS, but you would then leave other bases sorely lacking AV points.

You could also come up with another rule limiting 4E bombers to level 6 airfield. Level 5 airfields are too prevelant in the game. However, there would also be problems with that, cause Tarawa can be built to a level 6 airfield, and to my knowledge Tarawa IRL was never able to support 4E bombers

[Yamato hugger]

Recon wont tell you how many av support points someone has at a base though. It will tell you how many planes are there (not engines, however) by type. And you already know the size.

[tabpub]

but according to my house rule, say you had 71st Aviation Rgt at the base with 250 aviation support points....you could only base 62 (round up to a squadren of 64) 4E bombers at the base. This would stop the stacking of three 72 plane B17 sqd at a base of 250 aviation support points. Now of course you can dig up enough Aviation Support points to get your 300 plane B17 DS, but you would then leave other bases sorely lacking AV points.

You could also come up with another rule limiting 4E bombers to level 6 airfield. Level 5 airfields are too prevelant in the game. However, there would also be problems with that, cause Tarawa can be built to a level 6 airfield, and to my knowledge Tarawa IRL was never able to support 4E bombers

Yes, Liberators and Privateers operated out of there against the southern Marshalls in support of operations there, just not in LARGE #'s. My following post is a repeat of one in the "4E solutions" thread that is a composite coverage of both base and AV support.

[tabpub]

This would be one way of looking at airfield capacity as a user based template. It roughly follows the base capacity requirements in the rules, and the “capability” of the aircraft historically. For example, the size 4 field could be used by 4e aircraft, but the lack of taxiways and working off a single runway would limit the strike to one squadron of 16 planes or so.
Historical example: Funafuti, Nanomea and Nukfeateau(I think that’s the spelling) were all used during the Gilberts to bomb the Tarawa area, but by single squadrons that flew in, ran a mission or two and left to avoid counter strikes (one of which did occur as I remember).

Level 10 (many bases of different sizes) – 32 squadrons, 21 of 4e

9(several fields of different size) – 28 squadrons, 16 of 4e

8(improved lg.arfld) – 25 squadrons, 12 of 4e

7(large airfield) – 22 squadrons, 9 of 4e

6(med afld w/imp.fighter strip) – 18 squadrons, 4 of 4e

5(med afld w/fighter strip) – 15 squadrons, 2 of 4e type

4(medium airfield) – up to 12 squadrons, types same as 2, but 1 4e squadron allowed

3(small airfield) – up to 9 squadrons same types as 2

2(improved fighter strip) – up to 5/6 squadrons, may include f/b and 2e levels

1(fighter strip) – up to 3 fighter squadrons or 1 group

<Note> these are all based on Allied squadron size of 16, with 3 squadrons to a group generally. Smaller or larger unit sizes would have to be adjusted for.

Now, the player could have more a/c at an airfield than this list, but the extra should be either stood down, or set to naval search/CAP 10% maximum; as the basis for this is not the capacity of the base per se, but the ability of the base to launch that many a/c in a given window of time for a strike. The rationale for the allowing of the extra planes to operate at 10% levels are the ready fighters and early/late searches that fly off before/after the strike a/c.

Using the fully improved Marianas as an example, with the 3 fields fully built to 7; a maximum of 432 B-29s could sortie in one day from these bases, 144 from each. That is 3 groups per base; other groups would/could be there, but not flying missions that day.

Now, onto the question of AV support.
My thoughts would be something along the lines of this:
250 av support is fine for a base 5 to operate; every additional level would require 50 more AV to be present to support operations if the field is fully occupied. So, it would look like this:

Level 5 or less – 250 av
6 - 300 av
7 - 350 av
8 - 400 av
9 - 450 av
10 - 500 av


A fully loaded level 10 would need 2 aviation regiments or their equivalent.
If you were below the required amount for the field, you would treat that field as if it were the level that you had support for. Ex; Level 7 field with 250 av support would be treated just as if it were a level 5.
Conversely, if the field is not full, you don’t need all those men there at the moment. One group of 64 Mitchells in Seattle doesn’t have to have 500 av support to keep it going. But, if you want to fly in 400 planes the next day and operate them, you better have the av support there and waiting for them.

Taken in combination, this setup would not only limit the basing of aircraft, but also require a increasingly heavy commitment of av support to maintain larger #’s of 4E bombers at larger bases. This would seem to alleviate some of the consternation over the abilities of these a/c and tie them into a more realistic setting of base ability to handle them. If one is concerned about the # of 2E bombers working out of a base, just take the 4E limits and double them, remembering that the 2E would count against the 4E capacity. In other words, level 4 base can either have 2 2E squadrons or 1 4E squadron, not both.

Currently, this would all be up to the player to self monitor, but I think it is relatively simple and straight-forward to implement. Slight <emphasize> errors of a couple of planes over or a couple of AV support short can be tolerated for short periods, but should be corrected ASAP by the player.

[racndoc]

Check out Dereck's thread on strategic bombing of Japan. B-29s have been basically neutered for strategic bombing. He has spreadsheets of data for almost a full year of strategic bombing missions. Its almost impossible to start a firestorm now. The Allies should be able to burn Japan to the ground.

As far as PDUs its a double edged sword...it helps the Allies at the start. Forget about the 4Es...it takes forever now to fill out your squadrons with B-17Es as the replacement rate is so low. I upgrade all my Aussies to Beauforts and Hurricanes and you can wreak havoc with the initial Japanese expansion into the SRA with 2 engine bombers. It tends to slow down ahistoric Japanese expansion in early 1942. Later on, the Japanese can upgrade to Tonys and A6M3s and A6M5s and that slows down ahistoric Allied expansion in late 1942. So I think PDUs are a good thing in that it tends to slow down ahistoric expansion on both sides.

[Sneer]

I'll repeat
I would increase strategic bombing ability and lower all other bombing mission results
strategic bombers are ...strategic bombers no navy killers or ground support

[hawker]

I would increase strategic bombing ability and lower all other bombing mission results
strategic bombers are ...strategic bombers no navy killers or ground suppo

[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Yamato hugger]

Problem is, the game isnt set up that way. Bombs is bombs.

[hawker]

Problem is, the game isnt set up that way. Bombs is bombs.

Maybe some future patch can correct that.

[Sneer]

Problem is, the game isnt set up that way. Bombs is bombs.

if bombs are bombs why 2e bombers don't have diving ability ?
or 4e - imagine 4e dive bombers or tank busters - effect will be similar like today [:)]
looks like there is not a problem to code torpedo runs or dive bombing so strategic bombers should also have its place

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: pauk

however the main issue stays: B17 are overpowered and several glitchs in the game certainly doesn't helps:

#1 broken japanese AA fire (see Apollo11 threads about it)
#2 broken japanese radar (see japanese radar thread started by Tophat in war room)

unforutnatly, we haven't got any respons from officials on #1 and #2 and i doubt that this will be ever fixed (honestly i don't know why, but suspect we are silent minority here on forum and it is not worth effort - all other glitchs/bugs on the allied side are promptly fixed)

like i wrote, we are already on page two, and no one is interested in #1 and #2.
Guess that
it isn't really important, it affects only Japanese side[8|].

Japanese AAA stunk! Even in 1945, LeMay found he could fly his B-29's over Japanese cities at altitudes that would have been suicidal over Germany (6-8,000 feet) because Japanese AAA was no real threat.

[spence]

Both Germany and Japan produced some marvelous weapons. Both Germany's and Japan's leadership held dear to outmoded ideas about warfare rooted in the past. They thus tended to build bigger tanks, battleships, and cannons or faster submarines or airplanes without really studying how they might improve the performance of what they had. The Allies did. They called it OPERATIONS RESEARCH or OPERATIONS ANALYSIS. Groups of scientists, mathematicians and military officers studied specific problems such as radar defense, anti-submarine actions, logistics (particularly as it related specifically to operations in the Pacific). These type groups were formally established within all British armed services by 1941 and all US armed services by 1942. They had the backing of the high command which meant that suggestions they came up with were implemented fairly rapidly (not without resistance necessarily but when the general glares and says "you will...you do"). In part that's why the Allies had factories mass producing radars and spare parts, schools training both operators and Officer/Petty Officers to interpret the data, doctrines (not necessarily particularly good ones) written down and constantly revised. Operations Research Groups later extended down from service level to theater and even lower commands.
The Axis lacked this intangible advantage. Specifically in WitP Japan lacked it. To the "Spirit Warriors" solving a problem meant building a better gun. Radar got short shrift by the IJN/IJA High Command. Sure they had the sets but not the schools, factories, doctrines, and analysis. That's why their radar basically contributed very little to their forces employment. (Also explaining why their flak stunk at night too).

[worr]

ORIGINAL: hawker

On 18.03 1945 group of Me 262s intercepted a force of 1000+ bombers and 600+ escorting fighters. They managed to shoot down 12 bombers and one fighter.[8D]

The bombers didn't turn back on that mission either.

A friend of mine was a B-24 pilot over Germany. He told me about the late war ME-262s. They just watched them make one, two passes, and then they went away. WIth them went three bombers down in flames. The Jets didn't come back, he said, because they would make two passes and then would be gone. I suppose the reason was either ammo (no rockets on the ME-262) or because they assumed P-51s would soon be on the tails. Eitgher way, they continued the missio.

But now moving from the ME-109 to the ME-262 for a parallel to the A6M2 supposed success at "Obliberating" B-17 formations is a bit of a stretch. Or are you saying the ME-262 is undermodeled here?

Worr, out

[Honda]

Why don't the devs "unbreak" the blasted radars and then we see how they work. They are few and of lower stats than the allied radars. So, if they should do too well (as opposed to at all), then we can talk about the effect they make in game vs. RL documented performance. You know it makes sence, don't you[8D]
As far as adding strategic bombing - h€11 yeah!!! Turns out Panzer General is more realistic then WitP[8|]
lol

[Sneer]

the reason was fuel consumption
ME 262 had fuel for 30 minutes of flight only
start -climb atack and land in 30 min
so only 1 run available - very seldom sth longer