Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng, if house rules don't work, I suggest you either find a new opponent, or get out of the PBEM business... I've never had a problem PBEMing against anyone from this board - I find that most people are pretty darn honorable, even if they're losing. Maybe you've had bad experiences, but at this point, all I see is you bitching for bitching's sake...

I echo PzB's statements - I believe that boy's onto something!

No I am bitching because I can easily foresee that if the UV
treatment of the B-17 issue is ported into a game where
the US player HAS CONTROL of B-17 production, I can see
that the game will suck. What limits the B-17 in UV?

Its production rate is low. Anyone who has played the US
knows this. So if you give them control, they will remove
that hindrance.

It is not only ahistorical, it is ALSO a game balance issue, AND
a game design issue.

No I will NOT drop it.

Completely true Chiteng - I did post my opinion about Jap subs getting ventilated by merchants on the surface :p

I'm not trying to slap anyone - at least not everyone
Just wanted to break in and post a little reminder: Don't forget to wrap your annoyances in a lot of sarcasm and a big dose of Flashman humor!

Most of the time I write my postings with a wry smile on my face. Having fun is what it's all about!

(Anyone read the Flashman files? If there ever was a historical Blackadder! Hilarious...)

Originally posted by PzB
Completely true Chiteng - I did post my opinion about Jap subs getting ventilated by merchants on the surface :p

I'm not trying to slap anyone - at least not everyone
Just wanted to break in and post a little reminder: Don't forget to wrap your annoyances in a lot of sarcasm and a big dose of Flashman humor!

Most of the time I write my postings with a wry smile on my face. Having fun is what it's all about!

(Anyone read the Flashman files? If there ever was a historical Blackadder! Hilarious...)

I have read every Fraser book.
I hope he actually write Flashman at Gettysburg

I seem to remember in a book I read many years ago that some
PBYs based at Midway were rigged to carry a torp. They then
executed a night attack on the invasion force and scored one(1)
hit. Does anyone remember this? If true, should PBYs be given
the capability to carry torps/bombs and be given a naval attack mission? BTW, why the big deal over B-17s. I think there are
other issues that need to be addressed first, primarily in the command/control area.

Originally posted by NAVMAN
I seem to remember in a book I read many years ago that some
PBYs based at Midway were rigged to carry a torp. They then
executed a night attack on the invasion force and scored one(1)
hit. Does anyone remember this? If true, should PBYs be given
the capability to carry torps/bombs and be given a naval attack mission? BTW, why the big deal over B-17s. I think there are
other issues that need to be addressed first, primarily in the command/control area.

Why the big deal? because there is no counter to them.
That is why.

Yet when I read about the Pacific War, I DONT read about how the B-17 won the war all by itself. I do read how the Marines
won the war all by themselves.

My view is that the B17s are too powerful

It seems impossible to shoot them down.

When they are on Port Attack, they tend to destroy almost every ship in the port. It means that shipping cannot sail to or from Rabaul effectively closing Rabaul to shipping.

My other issue is that there are too many CVs in the game. They dominate the map at a time when the dominant issues were “we don’t have enough AKs or enough APs or enough CVs and our soldiers are stuck on an island requiring supplies”.

Both issues will be addressed in WITP. It will happen because the map is so large that neither the B17s or the CVs will be able to dominate – at least in the early stages.

But for the time being we have UV and we have an editor

I've never read where the AAF claimed to win the war in the Pacific. My experience with B-17s in UV is somewhat different then those who feel they are too powerful. They(B-17s) are almost, at least in my experience, "one shot" weapons due to what I consider to be outlandish fatigue rates. I would submit
that this negates the use of the '17 as a weapon of strategig bombing and attriting the enemy. I would suggest that any subjective perception of the '17 as being too poweful is offset by
the fatigue/moral factor. Should also point out that almost all
amphip ops in the Pacific were to either secure airfields or deny
same to the enemy. I don't think castrating heavy bombers
will result in a meaningful lesson in the Pacific war. However, these points are subjective and reasonable people can interpret
the same situations differently, which is part of the fun. Joe 98,
my problem, as you alluded to, does revolve around too few transports. I always have ample combat ships,air, etc., but never
enough AP/AK. Any thoughts on the Midway PBYs?

Originally posted by NAVMAN
I've never read where the AAF claimed to win the war in the Pacific. My experience with B-17s in UV is somewhat different then those who feel they are too powerful. They(B-17s) are almost, at least in my experience, "one shot" weapons due to what I consider to be outlandish fatigue rates. I would submit
that this negates the use of the '17 as a weapon of strategig bombing and attriting the enemy. I would suggest that any subjective perception of the '17 as being too poweful is offset by
the fatigue/moral factor. Should also point out that almost all
amphip ops in the Pacific were to either secure airfields or deny
same to the enemy. I don't think castrating heavy bombers
will result in a meaningful lesson in the Pacific war. However, these points are subjective and reasonable people can interpret
the same situations differently, which is part of the fun. Joe 98,
my problem, as you alluded to, does revolve around too few transports. I always have ample combat ships,air, etc., but never
enough AP/AK. Any thoughts on the Midway PBYs?

The effectivenss of the B-17 in Strategic Bombing isnt in dispute,
at least by ME.
The ability to attack SHIPS is what is disputed, at least by me.

If you feel that them lacking the ability they now posess is
'castrating' them, then I suggest you should re-evaluate the issue.

Perhaps the only thing that needs to be re-evaluated is the belief held by some people that they cannot be wrong and that they are completely inflexible. B-17s did attack ships. Whether or not
UV mirrors the historical record, as some people perceive it to be, is open to debate and discussion. I don't think insinuating that someone is wrong by telling them to "re-evaluate" serves any
purpose other then to end the discussion. So endeth the lesson.

Originally posted by NAVMAN
Perhaps the only thing that needs to be re-evaluated is the belief held by some people that they cannot be wrong and that they are completely inflexible. B-17s did attack ships. Whether or not
UV mirrors the historical record, as some people perceive it to be, is open to debate and discussion. I don't think insinuating that someone is wrong by telling them to "re-evaluate" serves any
purpose other then to end the discussion. So endeth the lesson.

If you felt you would convince me I am wrong, you would need to do much more than simply say 'your wrong'. That will have no impact. If there is no student, there is no lesson.

I am trying to make a better wargame. Not trying to make points.
The effect of the B-17 as coded now degrades the game.
If it remains that way in WitP it will be MUCH worse.

I know on no case where ANYTHING larger than a DD was every hit by a B-17.
Except of course for the end of the war.

And only ONE DD was ever hit in the time frame of this game.

IIRC, the real reason the more distant IJN ports were denied, was the threat of carrier based attacks. These attacks were what ran up the huge sinking rates and resulted in the withdrawl of IJN shipping.

I can't recall a single instance where an IJN port or airfield was completely shutdown or destroyed solely by heavy bomber raids.

Until the Allies secured airbases within fighter range of Rabaul/Truk, the prime AF ship killers/anti-shipping platforms were medium bombers. Heavy bomber attacks occured, were effective, but were mostly a "nuisance", ie. they aren't what you read about being the "primary threat".

In UV, the heavy bombers go anywhere, can hit anything, and can't be stopped for any reason. Usually, there's not a SINGLE attack that you can put your finger on, and say "this is totally ahistorical and preposterous".

It's the cumulative effect of the heavy bombers that is the issue IMO.

How to fix it (or if it even needs fixed)? Dunno...but there was a reason the heavy bomber didn't win the war in the Solomons single-handedly, and in UV they almost can. What that reason was, and how to model it is the question.

I suspect, that bombing accuracy needs to be tied to how much opposition the bombers are facing. Heavy flak, many fighters...their bombing accuracy % should take huge hits, or more than they take now. Light opposition...well, it sucks to be the IJN.

I think that the down time for NORMAL maintenance/light damage in UV is about right given the conditions during this time period. However, time down for major repairs from serious damage is not, and I don't think this is modeled. I note, in the accounts posted about the B-17's taking many hits, completing their mission, and still making it home that the fact that an AC taking numerous large calibre hits from many Zero's was probably in the shop for a LONG time is not mentioned.

Originally posted by Chiteng
If you felt you would convince me I am wrong, you would need to do much more than simply say 'your wrong'. That will have no impact. If there is no student, there is no lesson.

I am trying to make a better wargame. Not trying to make points.
The effect of the B-17 as coded now degrades the game.
If it remains that way in WitP it will be MUCH worse.

I know on no case where ANYTHING larger than a DD was every hit by a B-17.
Except of course for the end of the war.

And only ONE DD was ever hit in the time frame of this game.

Of course, one must remember with the USAAF B-17s paying regular visits to Rabaul by mid-1942, the IJN deemed it too risky to operate Naval forces out of Rabaul, instead keeping the anchorage at Truk, well out of B-17 range.

So if a player wants to anchor his CVs and capital ships at Rabaul, well, so much for history.

Yes, the used it for staging and refuleing, but it was not a naval anchorage after the USAAF starting hitting the wharf', piers, warehouses, and anchored shipping at Rabaul on a regular basis.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. People have come down on both sides of this issue. It is a subjective issue and therefore, can be argued in good faith by both perspectives.
I have my view and you have yours and that's why there is chocolate and vanilla. There is nothing wrong in trying to make a better GAME. I have made posts in the past calling into question
some aspects of the game, However, I believe the operative word is "GAME". As such, there will always be conflict between being historically correct and being playable. If someone wishes to be dogmatic in the position they take, fine with me, but they should try and refrain from what some might consider to be remarks calling another person's IQ into question, albeit in a polite way.

Originally posted by denisonh
Of course, one must remember with the USAAF B-17s paying regular visits to Rabaul by mid-1942, the IJN deemed it too risky to operate Naval forces out of Rabaul, instead keeping the anchorage at Truk, well out of B-17 range.

So if a player wants to anchor his CVs and capital ships at Rabaul, well, so much for history.

Yes, the used it for staging and refuleing, but it was not a naval anchorage after the USAAF starting hitting the wharf', piers, warehouses, and anchored shipping at Rabaul on a regular basis.

Your point?

The facts is that players routinely make bombing runs on ships
WAY before ever attacking the Port itself.
Because the Port can repair itself. A sunk ship cannot.

The example I posted was a ship NOT in port NOR docked.
Yet it was hit, so your point about 'ships in port' is moot'
If teh issue had REMAINED a 'ships in port' issue, then there IS
a defense. Dont put your ships in port. Very simple. However that
is NOT what we are talking about here.
We are talking about ships under way getting struck.

Originally posted by NAVMAN
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. People have come down on both sides of this issue. It is a subjective issue and therefore, can be argued in good faith by both perspectives.
I have my view and you have yours and that's why there is chocolate and vanilla. There is nothing wrong in trying to make a better GAME. I have made posts in the past calling into question
some aspects of the game, However, I believe the operative word is "GAME". As such, there will always be conflict between being historically correct and being playable. If someone wishes to be dogmatic in the position they take, fine with me, but they should try and refrain from what some might consider to be remarks calling another person's IQ into question, albeit in a polite way.

I dont call people names. I leave that to the unenlightened.
You can be brillant and still be uninformed. It happens all the time.

Originally posted by Chiteng
Your point?

The facts is that players routinely make bombing runs on ships
WAY before ever attacking the Port itself.
Because the Port can repair itself. A sunk ship cannot.

The example I posted was a ship NOT in port NOR docked.
Yet it was hit, so your point about 'ships in port' is moot'
If teh issue had REMAINED a 'ships in port' issue, then there IS
a defense. Dont put your ships in port. Very simple. However that
is NOT what we are talking about here.
We are talking about ships under way getting struck.

Well, when we want to state that no major IJN naval vessel was hit by a B-17, the conditions under which underly your statement need to made clear.

That is the reason I brough that up.

I would also add, IIRC, that no major IJN TF got any close than 400 miles to any base that had B-17s (at least during the day), making it less than likely that a major IJN warship would have ever been struck by a bomb from a B-17.

Using the blanket statement that no IJN warship larger than a DD obsures some of the surrounding facts that contribute to that condition.

Although I still do not see the B-17 as the "uber-weapon" you do, I do not necessarily disagree with juliet7bravo's assessment.

The accuracy needs to be adjusted somewhat, the AA effects for low level bombing by B-17/24s increased, and the number of personnel killed reduced.

I find the B-17s in my PBEM game as the IJN annoying, yet not the veritable "terminator" you picture. They miss more than they hit, and have yet to hit an IJN warship in a TF at sea (and my opponent has had plenty of opportunities)

Originally posted by denisonh
Well, when we want to state that no major IJN naval vessel was hit by a B-17, the conditions under which underly your statement need to made clear.

That is the reason I brough that up.

I would also add, IIRC, that no major IJN TF got any close than 400 miles to any base that had B-17s (at least during the day), making it less than likely that a major IJN warship would have ever been struck by a bomb from a B-17.

Using the blanket statement that no IJN warship larger than a DD obsures some of the surrounding facts that contribute to that condition.

Although I still do not see the B-17 as the "uber-weapon" you do, I do not necessarily disagree with juliet7bravo's assessment.

The accuracy needs to be adjusted somewhat, the AA effects for low level bombing by B-17/24s increased, and the number of personnel killed reduced.

I find the B-17s in my PBEM game as the IJN annoying, yet not the veritable "terminator" you picture. They miss more than they hit, and have yet to hit an IJN warship in a TF at sea (and my opponent has had plenty of opportunities)

Not my point...when WitP comes out...we will all tend to stop playing UV....its defects wont matter then.

It is a port of the same effect that I am concerned about.

Although I dont like CV getting hit by B-17 either in UV.

Chiteng,

I fully expect a patch retrofitting UV after WitP comes out. And may still play UV, at least while I still have PBEM campaigns ongoing.

I like he scope and scale of UV, and will continue to play, particularly if some of the weaknesses are corrected.

But as for IJN CVs and other major warships getting hit by a bomb from a B-17 in UV, or WitP for that matter, it is as much a funtion of your "gameplay" vs historical dispositions relative to major allied LBA.

The IJN (and USN in the early war) avoided getting close to bases with LBA, because such a scenario of a bomb or torpedo hitting a CV was unacceptable.

If you take your CVs next to PM while it is still active, you are doing more than the IJN ever did in real life relative to risking thier carriers with regard to LBA.

I think that Mr Frag made an excellent point reference overbuilding. 4 engine bombers can operate from way to many places. If they don't fix the overbuilding, then they should require a level 5 airfield. That would probably do as much to address the problem as anything else (no B-17s at Nevea, Gavigamana, Wunpuko, Buna, etc...)

Mike Scholl started a good thread over in the WITP forum - basically a good spot to list what you'd like changed from UV to WITP. I posted some of my ideas in addition to his - I say we all list what we'd like (and mention our agreement with other posters good ideas), but limit the disagreement in that thread so 2by3 has a clean wish list/fix-it thread.

Just an idea...