Ships too Fragile in AE???

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

American CVE 56 Liscombe Bay was sunk by a single torpedo..

HISTORY

CVE 56 had a merchant ship hull. If you review the British stats, you discover that if you looked at a merchie cross-eyed, they had a 50% chance of sinking.

[Dili]

let alone CV/CVL, BB, and CA/CLs. With the rapid improvements in RADAR, the understanding of how they could be most effectively employed, and the capacity to coordinate multiple ship CAPs from one station in the TF/TG, as well as the deck handling of aircraft, it would be well nigh impossible to get an undetected strike even close to a CV TF.

In confusion of combat with dozens of planes was always possible without reliable IFF's and much discrimination:

A notable action took place on 12 August 1942 when two Re.2001G/Vs modified to carry single 640 kg (1,410 lb) fragmentation bombs, accompanied by a fighter escort of Re.2001s, carried out a successful attack on HMS Victorious during Operation Pedestal. Reportedly, the Re.2001s were not challenged because of their similarity in appearance to Sea Hurricanes.[3] During the attack, a direct hit was scored on the aircraft carrier's flight deck but the bomb failed to explode and fell harmlessly into the sea.[4]

In this particular case the 2 Reggiane 2001's apparently approached the Carrier as a friendly fighters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re_2001

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Japan





I Agree with you here, but (without making any claims) I would like to ask a humble way question,
most Game Designers make adjustments to fit the users, ie. giving the "good" side the better ability's overall,
and In WITP this might have been done as well ie. The absurd Allied CV Bonus from 1/44, who can't Evan be compared with the Zero Bonus.. Will this sort of considerations be taken in AE... knowing that the majority of the Customers and Customer base is American ect ect ect...

The United States Navy owned the skies over the Pacific in 1944, they picked an area of ocean and operated in it with impunity. The shattered and broken air forces of the empire were getting shredded anytime they took aim on the Big Blue Fleet in '44, hence the devine wind. No revisionist history will change that.

[John Lansford]

ORIGINAL: Japan

@RevRick I also hope it is the reason, Matrix Games in General are impressive IMHO, but just the name of the product "The Struggle Agianst Japan" has an "Allied twist" to it, and many Game Developers do take Customer based Considerations due to sales numbers ect. into account, Afterall that is why the game is made in the first plase!
Anyway, I'm not able to dudge anyone, only asking my very humble question as described in post above.

Regardless, Im very happy that the "waste majorety" of Bonuses has been removed in AE (From both sides of course), and I hope that both the sides get's accurately represented.

If they were accurately represented, then the Allied CVTF's will be nearly invulnerable to Japanese airstrikes from 1944 onward. How many bombs hit USN ships protected by CAP in 1944/45? Princeton got hit once, one or two CV's got hit by bombs later on, and that's about it (not counting kamikazes). How many sorties were flown against those same carriers? 2000? 5000? 10000? That's a good definition of "invulnerable" to me.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


The United States Navy owned the skies over the Pacific in 1944, they picked an area of ocean and operated in it with impunity. The shattered and broken air forces of the empire were getting shredded anytime they took aim on the Big Blue Fleet in '44, hence the devine wind. No revisionist history will change that.

Of course the Allies had supremecy in the sky, there is no doubt about that, and I do not see anyone claiming anything but that!



The thing here you see, is that The Allies had Total Air Superiority in 44, but Japan used Zekes and Zeros... poor pilots and poor Air Organizations. This is elements we as players must be (and are) able to change, we can Ie. remove all Zekes and Zeros and release them with Jacks (I did so in my current game), and we do not need to use poor pilots, we can have skilled pilots... (To a large degree i did that also in my current game), so... now the Situation is totally changed ...---...Should then the game anyway be programmed to give the same results as if it was Zeros you were fighting ???

Now I think you get the point!

A Good Thing is, that in AE All this stuff is removed.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: Japan

@RevRick I also hope it is the reason, Matrix Games in General are impressive IMHO, but just the name of the product "The Struggle Agianst Japan" has an "Allied twist" to it, and many Game Developers do take Customer based Considerations due to sales numbers ect. into account, Afterall that is why the game is made in the first plase!
Anyway, I'm not able to dudge anyone, only asking my very humble question as described in post above.

Regardless, Im very happy that the "waste majorety" of Bonuses has been removed in AE (From both sides of course), and I hope that both the sides get's accurately represented.

If they were accurately represented, then the Allied CVTF's will be nearly invulnerable to Japanese airstrikes from 1944 onward. How many bombs hit USN ships protected by CAP in 1944/45? Princeton got hit once, one or two CV's got hit by bombs later on, and that's about it (not counting kamikazes). How many sorties were flown against those same carriers? 2000? 5000? 10000? That's a good definition of "invulnerable" to me.

HISTORY

Just the suicide planes:

48 attacks on USN cruisers and battleships--44% hit
44 attacks on USN CVs--41% hit
37 attacks on USN CVLs and CVEs--48% hit
241 attacks on USN destroyers--36% hit
21 attacks on USN APs, APAs, AKs, and AKAs--43% hit
49 attacks on USN landing ships--22% hit
37 attacks on USN small craft--22% hit

[Japan]

!!! @John Lansford, @SuluSea


Sir, lets try to think of this in a larger perspective!

What planes did the Japanese use ? What Doctrines did they use ? and What Pilot Quality did they use ?

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.



What I'm trying to say, is If we change all the Parameters, we replase the Zero and the Zeke with the Jack, (I replased in my game all the 800 Land Based Navy Fighter's i have with 800 Jack's)... so If you give them Modern Aircraft... and If you give them Professional "State of the Art" Pilots... and if you OUTNUMBER the Allied Carrier CAP as well..

So, now ALL parameters is changed....... Should your results then be "Programmed by the Game" Evan before the Battle Starts ?

When you change the situation, when we use state of the art planes and good pilots, then the result should not be the same as if we were useing Zeros and Zekes with Poor Pilots! Thát is why I don't like the 1/44 CV CAP Bonus.




Now as AE has Removed this things (thank god), then it will enable for more Flexibility.

In WITP (PDU=ON) you can effect your airforce, In My Airforce I have 600 Frances highly advanced Torpedo Bombers, and arround 1800 other bombers ... and I have some 1500 Tony Fighters and 800 Jack Fighters...who is intended to be part of THE SAME strike when the Allies Come. With Other Words, My Strike Force is in the Numbers of 3000+ "State of the Art" Aircrafts, with at least 2500 Experienced Pilots. Japan historicly never had any of that. They never had that many Professional Pilots in Modern Planes, I doubdt they Evan ever assambled that Strength to be part of the same strike!
So, Should It be to much to ask for that my results are not Doomed to become the same as Japans Historicly due to a code in the game ?


Should with this force, and with the Experienced Pilots I have (now in 2/44).. I be forced to take the same conditions and losses as historical when they had poor planes and poor pilots ?

I'm not saing that my Airfoce is not doing good, I indeed think it is doing ok... we had a incident for 6 weeks ago
were 96 of my Jack's shot down 105 P-47's... I also lose planes to Coursairs ect... but it is doing fairly ok.

But, the CV Bonus anoy's me a little, It forces me to having to Assamble thousends of planes just for a singel strike.
Back in December 1943 I striked a CV Fleet with 550 Fighters and 500 Bombers, killing 248 Hellcats for the loss of 370 of my own, I broke the CAP and sunk sevreal Capital ships, those numbers I think is more realistic when you take into consideration the type of planes and pilots I use. But, after 1/44 the very same strike would slaughtered my entire strike wing. I don't understand why a few days in the game should create that massive change... and the only reason is because when the time line crosses 1/44... then all the Allied CAP is equiped with Extra Guns and Extra Jet Super Engines... so that they can do 2 Fire Phases for every 1 of yours... but a few days earlyer in 43 then they all play by the same rules... This is what I don't like.


In AE this have been fixed, and that is what my point here is. In AE the Bonus is gone, and the Effect of your Airforce will be more realistic as of 1/44 IMHO. If you manage to make a Modern Airforce, then it should pay off, you should not have to deal with a "Super Bonus Code" that ensures Allied Victory regardless of how your Airforce looks like.

[SuluSea]

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

I Agree Fully Sir.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If we shall play this game only to repeat history, then I think we all should be playing the Allied Side.

The game and its contents should be accurately modelled nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

The world is Dynamic, I have found WITP to offer a lot of Alternate Historyes, IF you capture India and Expand Aircraft Industry you can manage a lot seen from a Production Perspective. If you conserve your Pilot Pools and conserve skilled pilots you can have experienced pilots as well... So nothing is Static, It will all become what you make it.

You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

It seems or I am?

My two posts in this thread reflect my wishes to have the weapons of war accurately modelled, anything more than that are your assumptions and yours only.

[Hornblower]

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one.  the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.  For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.  To the quote  "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "  then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.  Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.  

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one.  the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.  For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.  To the quote  "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "  then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.  Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.  

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast? [:D]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

It seems you are cutting the edge that nothing "should be possible" in the game, that did not in fact occur, such that user Japan cannot get experienced pilots later in the war with IJ, nor have fighter production changes.

It seems or I am?

My two posts in this thread reflect my wishes to have the weapons of war accurately modelled, anything more than that are your assumptions and yours only.

Most on this board, who want "weapons of war accurately modelled" don't want anything changed even when the game didn't end up going along historical lines (such as IJ having a different leader for a start). I mean, from your perspective, weapons of war aren't accurately modeled if those weapons aren't the same, and in the same numbers, right? You don't have an issue with him having so many experienced pilots either, then?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one.  the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.  For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.  To the quote  "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "  then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.  Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.  

GAME, NOT AE

I don't know how AE is handling this. I would handle these issues as skill levels. To model the Zero bonus, I'd start the IJN pilots out very skilled, and the Allied pilots mediocre at best. To model the superiority of Allied pilots and air operations in 1943-1944 (outside of the aircraft-based superiority), I would have the later Allied pilot replacements much better trained than the later Japanese pilots. Then, if the Japanese player wants to model a more effective training programme, he and his opponent can mod the scenario to improve pilot skills and numbers produced. I know it involved av gas shortages, but that part can be modelled by additional skill improvement if the Japanese player is willing to pay the supply for training flights.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one.  the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.  For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.  To the quote  "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "  then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.  Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.  

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast? [:D]

HISTORY

Win the war for Japan meant that the Allies offered terms.

[Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one.  the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.  For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.  To the quote  "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "  then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.  Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.  

win the war means what? Taking the West Coast? [:D]

HISTORY

Win the war for Japan meant that the Allies offered terms.

this actually supports my point, don't you think? Japan has a very tall hill to climb, to lessen the slope to an totally even playing field isn't correct either.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I have to agree with SuluSea on this one.  the USN bonus in '44 is warrented.  For the same reasons that the Zero Bonus is warrented early game, and the USN damage control bonus.  To the quote  "You should not be effected by how Poor the Japs did historicly if you can do it far better. "  then try to win the war before the bonus kicks in.  Or use tatics that lessens there effect on your units.  

GAME, NOT AE

I don't know how AE is handling this. I would handle these issues as skill levels. To model the Zero bonus, I'd start the IJN pilots out very skilled, and the Allied pilots mediocre at best. To model the superiority of Allied pilots and air operations in 1943-1944 (outside of the aircraft-based superiority), I would have the later Allied pilot replacements much better trained than the later Japanese pilots. Then, if the Japanese player wants to model a more effective training programme, he and his opponent can mod the scenario to improve pilot skills and numbers produced. I know it involved av gas shortages, but that part can be modelled by additional skill improvement if the Japanese player is willing to pay the supply for training flights.

There is a keen difference between the Zero bonus and the late USN bonus. The Zero bonus, since it's right from the start, affords little the allies can do about that (such as re-take all of China). However, all manner of things can change up till the USN bonus, as the USN fighting different fighters, or being in political turmoil, in any number of other things that could happen should IJ be greatly successful. Naturally the game has to have it's limits, but having an automatic CAP, based on history, when the CAP won't necessarily be facing history, because so many things can change for either side by then, is pretty unfair.

With the Zero bonus, I don't think there's anything you could do gamewise that could make the allies be prepared for the Zero, other than what they later did, which was accounted for. There's just too many variables to make the USN bonus automatic and it make any sense. There's also the argument that the USN bonus should be more dramatic still, should IJ come off that much more poorly than history, but it should be variable to the results nonetheless. I guess in a perfect world, the Zero bonus would be variable too, but since it is that way from the start, and it does decline quickly, there might not be a whole lot of point into making that variable to results.

[vettim89]

Well it is after all just a game. As such there has to be some play balance. There are a litany of complaints that could be made. Some would say the Japanese are too powerful in 1942 while others would contend that the Allies are too powerful in late 1944 and 1945. For every gripe that the Corsair is too powerful they is the counter gripe that the Betty is too powerful. While the Uber USN CAP provision that Japan mentions is obviously a flaw that, as has already been pointed out, has been corrected, the are some serious flaws in the production system for the Japanese that give them far too much to work with in the last year or so of the war. I think AE will greatly improve many of the problems we saw in WITP. Will it fix all of them? Obviously not but I think it will be a huge step forward.

Personally I have a problem when any JFB gripes about the game being biased against the Japanese. In my game and many others we see the Japanese put carriers to sea in 1944 that never made it off the ways in RL. We see huge numbers of third generation fighters produced flown by expert pilots trained by bombing peasants in China. All I can say is this: how would the JFB's feel if the Allied player could accelerate his Essex CV's so they all appear in the first four months of 1944 or and throw a few Midway Class in there too. What about giving the Allies R&D capabilities so all the US CV's have F8F and F4U-4's on them by 1945. Oh and instead of P-38's and P-51's, the USAAF will be flying P-80's. Oh and all the B-24 factories will be converted to B-29's. My point is the Japanese have plenty of advantages already and really shouldn't complain about the few advantages given to the Allies