Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Long Lance


Akagi was doomed, the LL just accelerated her starving.

'Starving' is perhaps not the most intelligent English word to use in this context...:rolleyes:

Sorry!

Originally posted by Long Lance


To be honest: Towing a burning Carrier thousands of miles back to homeland?? No. I just wanted to build up well balanced Carrier Forces on both sides, so I chose Akagi to be saved, because she was scuttled by Long Lance:) Torpedoes.
Akagi was doomed, the LL just accelerated her starving.
I called this scenario semihistoric, because the difference between what really was to that what I assumed to be in my scenario is not too big. So I told this story to build the well balanced Carrier Forces. Btw, in this scenario the Mogami-Class CA (Mikuma?) isn't sunk, too. I didn't care about smaller ships.


-Well, I was about to ask you about Mikuma. The scenario I´m
-building assumes BoM ended in a draw, with the two sides
-losing two carriers. So IJN will have back Hiryu and Akagi, while
-USN will lose the Hornet. But I´m including the Yorktown and
-The Lexington Essex class Carriers. It will take me a lot of time
-since I must edit some extra pilots to allow for the increased
-squadrons of 1943.

You didn't have time? Me too.

Who has the time UV deserves to spend????

-And just wonder what will happen when WiTP is released (I
-hope it will happen before the final collapse of my country´s
-currency):(

After playing several months of turns in a campaign, here is a short list of things I would like to see improved/changed.
1) Naval recon is too revealing- it seems like 1 a/c can spot anything within 360 degrees within it's range as well as id the name of ships, no Midway type battles here
2) Subs getting into gun battles along with torps with the enemy
3) Repair rates of heavy bombers- being changed
4) Overland supply- Lae & Salamua both have 20k+ but little or none make it to Nadzab
5) The AI needs better strategic thinking ablility- ie sending AP & AG units blindly to be sunk in overwhelming air superiority along with some other examples
6) Range & supply load/usage by C47's- seems to use more than delivers even on short hops
7) Transport TF using port fuel up to refuel itself as it unloads it, also docked TF's using fuel

I think the aircraft attack routines need to be update or fixed. I just had 60+ aircraft attack a convoy of eight transports. They only damaged two of them, and one was hit 60 times by shells (mostly .50 caliber) and by 43 bomb hits (500 pounders).The second ship was hit by 3 bombs and the other ships were not even attacked.

I think the computer ought to check to see if the target has sunk or taken enough damage to sink before more aircraft attack it. In this case, I should have taken out the whole convoy but I only sank one ship and damaged a second.

I understand it is hard to see when a ship has taken enough damage to sink, but clearly this attack force of B-26's, A-20's, Hudsons, Beauforts and A-24's should have split up it's attack.

But they didn't. Rain, cloud, optical illusions, whatever, can lead to ships not being spotted or attacked. Read some WW2 accounts of air attacks. "Chaotic" is the operative word.

air supply should be hugely expensive. c-47 supplying of large bases could be done but it was a thousand percent less efficent that shipping over water..I think the game represents this well.

However I will agree with the air attack "blowthrough". I have on numerous occasions had airstrikes launch where destroyer escorts of battleships or carriers will draw twenty or thirty percent of a large strike. I have also had the exact same experience where nearly nuclear levels of force (my record is 10 1000lb bombs on a mid sized ap) have been employed. While I completely understand (and agree with) the assertion that some bombers are already in dives, have dropped, or are otherwise "over the line" even if they know the target is toast, I would like to see some acknowledgement that surely not EVERY bomb is launched within 10 seconds of each other. Surely smaller ships, especially AP's and lightly build things like MSW, could be litterally blown to fragments by the first say three torpedoes or four 1000 lb bombs. In these cases, I would like to greater distribution, perhaps based on experiences of pilots, weather, etc.

Originally posted by XPav
But they didn't. Rain, cloud, optical illusions, whatever, can lead to ships not being spotted or attacked. Read some WW2 accounts of air attacks. "Chaotic" is the operative word.

XPav, I understand the game might have some variability, but remember that this ship was HIT by 60 shells and 43 bombs. If all these planes missed, and reported hits then I understand
the results. But even assuming they all of those shells and bombs did not hit, this transport took much more damage than it needed to sink. At some point it would have sunk and they were still bombing and strafing it.

When ships receive a certain amount of damage, they should sink immediately and not be a target anymore. Perhaps 120% of their damage potential would be appropriate.

In any case, these pilots would have seen the damage they were causing and SOME of them should have attacked another target. I do not believe this is a feature, but a bug.

I would like to be able to upgrade P39's and P400's to P40E's and I would like to be able to upgrade B17E's to B24D's.

In the first case I have a unit with no aircraft and no replacement aircraft available, but I have 40+ P-40E's available. If I gave them P40's, they would be defending PM right now.

I also have a B17 until with no planes and 8 pilots and no pool B17's available. If I could upgrade to B24's they could be flying missions since I have many of those in the aircraft pool.

Originally posted by IndyShark
I also have a B17 until with no planes and 8 pilots and no pool B17's available. If I could upgrade to B24's they could be flying missions since I have many of those in the aircraft pool.

Agreed. At least some of the B-17 Groups should be automatically upgraded to B-24s.

When ships receive a certain amount of damage, they should sink immediately and not be a target anymore. Perhaps 120% of their damage potential would be appropriate.

I am not sure that sinking immediately is really that historical.

It was standard practice to go after damaged ships and "gangbang" them. But it was infrequent that the pilots themselves saw that many ships sink

Especially with bombs.

Bombs can turn a ship into a burning hulk, but not necessarily sink right away. So if it is floating, it is still a target.

And XPav's point is well met. There are vagaries associated with combat that causes results that are more often than not easily explainable, and/or were not orderly or logically executed.

Saburo Sakai is absent for Tainan AG in Scenario 19 & 17. He is only present in Scenario #1-Coral Sea If I knew how I would use scenario editor to add him myself

Originally posted by zed
Saburo Sakai is absent for Tainan AG in Scenario 19 & 17. He is only present in Scenario #1-Coral Sea If I knew how I would use scenario editor to add him myself

Scenario 17 & 19 :
Saburo Sakai - pilot n° 598
Group : 051 (F1/Tainan Daitai)

Spooky

you are telling me he is there? or how to edit so he is there?

Originally posted by zed
you are telling me he is there? or how to edit so he is there?

Well, just check yourself There is a S. Sakai in the F1/Tainan Daitai at the beginning of sc 17 ...

The surprising thing is that his exp is only 95 while it is 99 in the editor ...

Originally posted by Long Lance


Agreed. At least some of the B-17 Groups should be automatically upgraded to B-24s.

I'm fairly certain this never happened in reality.

The B-17 groups basically wore down and ran out of planes, and were sent to Europe.

The B-24 squadrons were new squadrons. VERY different aircraft, and 4 engine bombers required huge amounts of training.

Originally posted by JohnK


I'm fairly certain this never happened in reality.

The B-17 groups basically wore down and ran out of planes, and were sent to Europe.

The B-24 squadrons were new squadrons. VERY different aircraft, and 4 engine bombers required huge amounts of training.

You're surely right concerning historical accuracy. But what for do you need half a dozen or so B-17-Sqds., if there's a monthly replacement rate of 7? A withdrawn B-17-Sqd. should upgrade to B-24, since it would recieve new pilots either - so they could be B-24 Pilots.

Withdrawn B-17 squadrons, in the real campaign either 1) went to Europe or 2) Something which was incredibly rare for the US in WWII....vanished completely. I believe that first B-17 Wing the US started out with had so many losses and such low morale, that it was simply eliminated and the personnel distributed elsewere..again, extremely rare.

So if it didn't happen in reality, why should you get your B-17 squadrons back with B-24s in UV?

Originally posted by JohnK
So if it didn't happen in reality, why should you get your B-17 squadrons back with B-24s in UV?

That's easy: It should happen, beacause I don't want to see a useless Bomber Sqd reappear every 90 days after it has been withdrawn. If I'd have the option to let it disappear completely, ok. There are enough BGs for the Allied Player.

Originally posted by JohnK


I'm fairly certain this never happened in reality.

The B-17 groups basically wore down and ran out of planes, and were sent to Europe.

The B-24 squadrons were new squadrons. VERY different aircraft, and 4 engine bombers required huge amounts of training.

I have a book around here called "B17's in the Pacific". The B17's did wear down and they were converted to B24's as the B17E's and B17F's wore out. I do not believe any B17G's were sent to combat units in the Pacific. There were new B24 bomb groups sent to the war zone, but few groups were dispanded entirely even though many of the original pilots rotated back to the US.