I think you missed the point on the altitudes question. The problems that arise from allowing players to do all sorts of odd things like "skip-bombing" with B-24's and such create a number of other game issues. Like having to re-do the flak results to make all this low level stuff more historically expensive and less effective (which is why historically it was limited to a few specialist squadrons) and many others. Taking away altitude control from the player in a game which already won't allow him to select a naval target was a suggestion to remove abuses, help "fix" some problems, and rationalize the system.
Hey Mike,
I didn't miss the point, I just disagreed with it. What you are advocating is LIMITNG this wonderful game so that people who DO take advantage of these little loopholes... can't. What you don't realize is that there are few players out there that know how to use their assets properly, and your suggestion hurts their gameplay too. Lets fix the problem not implement restrictions.
I DO however AGREE with the Spirit of the point. Do I think a B-17 squadron should be the scourge of Japanese shipping at 200 feet above the wave tops?...No.
Do I think Navy and even SOME Army B-24s (Specialized units)should patrol at low altitude and attack Japanese shipping...yes in small numbers(if not alone).
Should B-26s that have not been trained to level bomb ships at low altitude do so?...yes, but they should be EXTREMELY ineffective(I'm talking 1 in 100 attempts results in a hit), and subject to a real beating if the AP TF has a Zero CAP overhead.
Should B-26s clip the tops of the Owen Stanely Mountains and then skim the wavetops to bomb and strafe Lae Airfield... absolutely, it happened regularly in 1942 and 43. But they should pay the price in AAA and bounces from Zeros if they're CAPing overhead.
Should a B-25 unit specially trained to skip bomb be allowed to do so?...Absolutely. Should they be effective? Better believe it. Should I be able to task them with the level bombing of Lae airfield from 10k'?...absolutely. Will they be as effective as a normal BS that does that mission every day? Probably not, but they'll still do a decent job. Will I do that? Maybe. If I really need them to perform that mission and if there aren't any TFs within range.
Should the US Navy be afraid of Nells and Bettys executing a torpedo attack at low level? Ask the Royal Navy. Should they be afraid if that strike is unescorted, and there is a CAP of 12 F4Fs overhead? Maybe not so much. Should there be some hits on that TF, yep, but those Nells and Bettys Might think twice about coming back again after seeing say 1/2 there number splashed by Wildcats and AAA.
In all cases, even for a unit specially trained in low altitude ingresses, it is inherently dangerous. Not only with respect to AAA & fighters, but telephone poles, radio towers, buildings, birds, and the odd tree (I do realize that not all of these obstructions were abundant in 1940s New Guinea). This type of flying takes great concentration and is very tiring, even for a pilot trained to do it. How do I know you may ask? Because I do it. Its part of my job description.
MY point is, if the low level attack is easily abused by certain players without the appropriate game consequences (i.e. heavy toll on morale, A/C, Aircrew fatigue, high AAA, Air to air, & operatioanl losses etc.) for the untrained units that attempt it, then lets fix THAT! Let us not just do away with the function altogether. It should be SO uncomfortable for the player that chooses this method of attack with inappropriate assets, that he VERY quickly comes to the conclusion that it is better to use them the way they were intended to be used. There has to be some common ground we can come to an agreement on. Make altitude control a toggle switch. Allow those people who don't want it to turn it over to CDR Oneandzero.
If the argument is made that Altitudes are too time consuming and labor intensive for a game in the scale of WitP, then give ME the ability to to choose altitude control, and my PBEM buddy the ability to choose AI altitude control. For 90% of the bitches regarding this game this is the ONLY way to make everyone happy. And isn't that what we really want? Because if we aren't... Gary isn't happy, 2x3 ins't happy, and you won't have many people who want to play PBEM anymore.
I DO want the power to make these decisions though. I don't want the AI to do my mission planning for me. That isn't a reflection of my tactical prowess, its a simulation of a unit commander's tactical prowess, who isn't any smarter than a few 1s and 0s. As mentioned before in multiple threads and replies, the AI has its issues. I've read a lot of complaints about the AI from the same people who want to give it MORE control over THEIR game! What sense does that make?
The bottom line is. I think it would be great if the "Low Level anti-shipping/skip bombing" Mission was limited to the units that ACTUALLY did it, as a "Specialty mission" if you will. But I also believe that Level Bombing of shipping should be possible, at ANY altitude with appropriate consequences. Why you ask? Because if it is done right, my Zeros should pounce on those B-17s, B-26s, and any other LEVEL bomber and drive them into the sea. My AAA units should have a field day, and that LB units morale should plummet, such that the next time the Allied commnder asks them to do it, they give him the bird and tell him to eabfd.
The reality of it is, it won't be up to us, its up to the folks at 2x3. All we can do is complain and make suggestions. Thank God for that.
Don't take this personally if you disagree, Everyone has valid points on these forums, and eveyone knows their history, else they wouldn't be here.
Regards,
Elf
