surviving the heavies

[Nikademus]

Looks like a typical low alt result.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I don't agree that the issue of bombers vs bases is 'small beer' Thats why i did something about it. The rest of what you wrote i won't address in this thread. Off topic.

I consider it to be smaller than Japan being able to conquer China... which is definitely feasible, even likely, when coupled with a strategic bombing campaign aimed at Chinese resources.

Whereas even with bombers functioning as they do, the Allies tend to advance at a historical pace.

[moses]

I've yet to see anyone disagree that bomber replacements should not be reduced. It just seems so easy to do and I wonder why it is not simply done in the stock scenario.

The actual model does not seem out of kilter. In reality if 100 heavy bombers hit your air base the airbase is out of action. WWII showed pretty clearly that large formations of heavies could not be stopped from reaching their targets. 60 zero's are hardly going to stop 100 bombers.

The problem is that there are so many heavies around. And as your replacement pool is overflowing their is no great concern about bomber losses.

Cut all bomber replacement rates in half. Then do as Frag suggested in another thread and increase op losses or alternatively cause some % of damaged planes to be destroyed each turn(perserving the pilot). Both actions reduce the number of planes on both sides to more historical levels.

In addition to solving the bomber problem you also to a great extent solve the analogous fighter problem. This causes problems since I think it is agreed that the air combat model is not at its best with large air combats.

To illustrate:

In my current game I have several B-24 groups(around a 120 planes) at Ankerage. My opponant, to counter this has some hundred or so (at least) zero's and tony's at Dutch Harbor. Both are unrealistic as niether side historically is likely to be able to field so many first line aircraft in any theater. But you do what you must. Now if I send my bombers over we get the dreaded large air combat and who knows what will happen.

The recommended changes also help with the problem of overstacking of airfields. Why is this a problem?? Because players have non-historical inventories of front line aircraft.

So reduce numbers of aircraft through the suggested mechanisms and you fix the Bomber problem, the large air combat problem and the overstack problem. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

YEs, but what would have happened had the Japanese actually attacked India? Would the US and UK simply left it to them? Would that have been strategically wise?

My personal opinion mind you, [;)] but i feel that the UK would have screamed their heads off and begged the US to assist them in defending India. I also feel the US joint chiefs would have remained firmly against committing at the very least their ground troops. The Joint Chiefs were almost fanatic about not being seen as supporting what they called "colonialism" in any form. Thats part of why they didn't commit ground troops to Java or Sumatra. They might deploy airpower but i doubt it would have been heavies because we were busy turning the UK (a much more developed platform) into the world's biggest airbase capable of supporting and sustaining large numbers of heavy bombers.
Now, the counter to the above would be the China card...the UK could play that in order to get teh JCS to change their minds.....that was after all what eventually brought the 10th air force and some ground troops to NE India to help Stillwell build the Ledo road.

I agree that it is clear the US would have been loathe to commit troops half a world away when they were concerned still about defending the west coast. However, such rapid advances by the Japanese are also gamey. There is no regrouping, planning or suppression of native population that really in WitP, as there was for the Japanese in real life.

This is an old argument i agree, one that goes both ways. Of itself i don't consider invading India "gamey" as the Japanese did consider it and there was serious unrest in India at the time, however if the Allied player doesn't over commit in Burma he has enough forces to make it a fight. The game does allow rapid advances and part of the reason is the airpower factor. I have found that the ability of Japan to advance is more severely restricted in my mod because one of the angles i sought to adjust was how airpower works and interacts with ground assets.

SO, if the Japanese are going to go all out after India, the only response the allies could have is to reinforce with other allied units, something I think the US would have done if it was clear that most of Imperial Japans assets were aimed at India and Churchills back was to the wall. I don't think FDR would hesitate to send in heavy reinforcements, including air or ground.

Thats one strategy.....this question has been asked in a current thread. Another possibility would be to start a major Allied offensive elsewhere while the Japanese are busy in India. They are not strong enough to both adequately defend the Pacific and invade India at the same time.

[Bombur]

Why are we suddenly mentioning estimated P-38 kill raitos in 43? why are we suddenly talking about China? What do these have to do with discussing "surviving the heavies" Why is discussing the heavies suddenly an exercise in "Japanese fanboy-ism? When i said, "Too fast, too easy and too unbloodly" i was referring to the bases themselves and their ability to defend themselves (either side). A player.....both Japanese or Allied, can only defend a base against mass bomber attack at low altitude with equally massive numbers of fighters. Have i mentioned lately that i'm saying both Japanese and Allied? Historically the Americans were able to shut down Japanese airbases through a concentrated and sustained attritional battle. However this does not equate to a 1 or 2 day 6000 foot attack, forcing the defending player to evac the base before his air forces are even atritted.

How effective historically were USN raids on Rabaul? Feinder is arguing that 8-12 B-17´s/day destroyed the base in 4 weeks. Is that correct? I have the impression that it took a lot of time to supress Rabaul and it was caused more by isolation and loss of planes in air to air combat than to base demolition, but it´s possible I´m wrong.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

So reduce numbers of aircraft through the suggested mechanisms and you fix the Bomber problem, the large air combat problem and the overstack problem. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Reducing the inventory is part of the answer i agree. However more steps are needed. I did a major scrub of Allied production. I'm not sure if it was too much....awaiting feedback.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

How effective historically were USN raids on Rabaul? Feinder is arguing that 8-12 B-17´s/day destroyed the base in 4 weeks. Is that correct? I have the impression that it took a lot of time to supress Rabaul and it was caused more by isolation and loss of planes in air to air combat than to base demolition, but it´s possible I´m wrong.

Rabaul was severely disliked by the bomber crews as a target because the Japanese turned it into a flak city. However Rabaul was not only facing a much augmented 5th Air Force but also Halsey's air assets as well. All in all they were outnumbered 2:1 in the air and the quality issues was worse still. Rabaul was made untendable in matter of weeks but it was a sustained blitz well supported by fighters (the latter of which Bergerud said were vital to the operation's success)

You won't see this in WitP...instead you just need to stage one good low alt gestault raid and boom....the base is immediately untendable

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Whereas even with bombers functioning as they do, the Allies tend to advance at a historical pace.

not in the games i've played.

[EUBanana]

I agree completely with what Moses said above. [:D]

As I said, its not a matter of mechanics, possibly one of OOB however.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: moses

So reduce numbers of aircraft through the suggested mechanisms and you fix the Bomber problem, the large air combat problem and the overstack problem. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Reducing the inventory is part of the answer i agree. However more steps are needed. I did a major scrub of Allied production. I'm not sure if it was too much....awaiting feedback.

I'm mainly interested in the stock scenario and not mods. Just my personnel preference.[;)]

This just seems like a very simple solution to a number of fairly serious problems. I don't see the counter-argument to fixing it in the stock scenario or at least in a PBEM only version of the stock scenario.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I agree completely with what Moses said above. [:D]

As I said, its not a matter of mechanics, possibly one of OOB however.

I don't agree, but one can always agree to disagree. [:D]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I think India was bottom of the food chain partly because it wasn't really of much interest to Japan. If the allies historically faced the same situation as WiTP,i.e. it is the only way to get Brittish reinforcements it would have been a different story.

Hmm, lets see. Prior to WWII, England has this pretty substantial list of colonies including India. The Axis get all nasty and start the war. India agrees to provide a pretty substanial army (huge in comparison to the British Army) to assist the British. They don't want much in return. Hmm, lets see. They want their independence. The British get much needed Indian assistance but lose a colony they had for a bunch of years. Is it really surprising that India was at the bottom of Britian's food chain? I don't think so.

[moses]

I don't agree, but one can always agree to disagree.

I would prefer to know where the disagreement is.

You appear to agree fully that there are too many bombers. (based on other threads and the fact that you are reducing them in your mod.)

Do you disagree that there are too many first line operational aircraft in general??? If so then the rest of my argument can be disputed. But I just don't remember 100 plane on 100 plane battles occuring all over the pacific especially in 42 and in isolated area's.

If you agree to the above do you disagree that reducing the numbers of aircraft available would help alliviate :

1.) the "problem" of uber-bombers?
2.) the "problem" with large air battles?
3.) the "problem" with overstacked airfields?

See I am staying on topic[:D] But just curious while I await a PBEM turn.

[Feinder]

Nik,

Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters?

There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures.

-F-

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Nik,

Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters?

There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures.

-F-

I take great umbrage at your insults. Were I to own "fortress against the Sun" I would defend my right to read only those portions which support my views along with captions.[:D]

I prefer to argue points which can be easily defended with only a little actual historical knowledge. Anything beyond this should be the province of historians and not game developers or players.

But come on I have 500 4E bombers in my replacement pool and its only 11/42!!!!!! There are way too many planes in the game. Does any book contradict this. Does anybody contradict this.

I believe that this fact is a direct cause of several other game problems. Namely overstacked airfields, large air combats, uber-bombardments and bombers.

[Bombur]

Rabaul was severely disliked by the bomber crews as a target because the Japanese turned it into a flak city. However Rabaul was not only facing a much augmented 5th Air Force but also Halsey's air assets as well. All in all they were outnumbered 2:1 in the air and the quality issues was worse still. Rabaul was made untendable in matter of weeks but it was a sustained blitz well supported by fighters (the latter of which Bergerud said were vital to the operation's success)

You won't see this in WitP...instead you just need to stage one good low alt gestault raid and boom....the base is immediately untendable

-What about losses for both sides and use of twin engine bombers by US forces? It seems to me that B-25´s were largely used against Rabaul too. And what made the base untenable? Losses of fighters in A2A or losses of planes in the ground or damage to instalations?

[Redd]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Nik,

Why is it that when you are happy to use "Fortress Against the Sun" when it suits you, but then completely discount it as "subjective" and "single source" when there it also contains copius supstantiated accounts of the utter destruction enemy airbases (with far fewer aircraft than need int WitP), B-17s regularly conducting successful anti-shipping strikes, and the fact that the Allied 4e bombers were indeed -very- effective against Japanese fighters?

There are others of us in the peanut gallery who also own it, and we didn't just read the captions under the pictures.

-F-

I take great umbrage at your insults. Were I to own "fortress against the Sun" I would defend my right to read only those portions which support my views along with captions.[:D]

I prefer to argue points which can be easily defended with only a little actual historical knowledge. Anything beyond this should be the province of historians and not game developers or players.

But come on I have 500 4E bombers in my replacement pool and its only 11/42!!!!!! There are way too many planes in the game. Does any book contradict this. Does anybody contradict this.

I believe that this fact is a direct cause of several other game problems. Namely overstacked airfields, large air combats, uber-bombardments and bombers.

I believe in this instance Feinder was "flipping off" Nick, not you Moses.

[Redd]

ORIGINAL: moses

I don't agree, but one can always agree to disagree.

I would prefer to know where the disagreement is.

You appear to agree fully that there are too many bombers. (based on other threads and the fact that you are reducing them in your mod.)

Do you disagree that there are too many first line operational aircraft in general??? If so then the rest of my argument can be disputed. But I just don't remember 100 plane on 100 plane battles occuring all over the pacific especially in 42 and in isolated area's.

If you agree to the above do you disagree that reducing the numbers of aircraft available would help alliviate :

1.) the "problem" of uber-bombers?
2.) the "problem" with large air battles?
3.) the "problem" with overstacked airfields?

See I am staying on topic[:D] But just curious while I await a PBEM turn.

I think that you are totally hitting the nail on the head here. There are just too many aircraft. With the way that supply is abstracted (and I have no problem with supply as it is. I don't want it any more complicated. There's just too much hardware lying around.) we need to make sure that the pools are representative of what the theatre commanders were capable of drawing upon.

[moses]

I believe in this instance Feinder was "flipping off" Nick, not you Moses

I know I was joking. thats why I put the [:D]. And I thought my whole first paragraph was sort of a joke.

He can't be flippin Nik off anyway. Who would do that.[:(]

[Redd]

ORIGINAL: moses

I believe in this instance Feinder was "flipping off" Nick, not you Moses

I know I was joking. thats why I put the [:D]. And I thought my whole first paragraph was sort of a joke.

He can't be flippin Nik off anyway. Who would do that.[:(]

Sorry, I've seen all too many good threads go south lately, [:D] not withstanding. I've noticed over the last few weeks that your posts tend to be not only well thought out and informative, but very reasonable amongst the polarization that seems to sometimes occur. Keep up the good work.