Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The whole Guadalcanal campaign was within torpedo carrying range of Rabaul, and yet I can only come up with information on that one attack on US shipping. Something must have held them back - it was a while before the Cactus Air Force was strong enough to be a real deterrent (remember, they did keep coming to Lunga to bomb the airfield).

They flew and they made their attacks, it's just that in real life it's harder to sink a torpedo into a moving ship than it is in WitP. Also, in real life those Bettys were flying from Malarial bases where everyone was beat from the disease. It was bad enough on the Americans with all their infrastructural support; worse luck still for the Japanese in all cases. So to keep those Bettys flying was the trick. On top of all that, before you can hit something you have to know where it is. At Guadacanal the Japanese were taken by surprise and didn't react until the next day. In WitP it's much less probable that a USN TF could sneak in there in like. Wonder why? [;)]

Anyway, it's not as if the USN parked a hundred ships off Lunga Roads every day. For long stretches the sound was clear of shipping and so there was nothing to detect or attack by the Japanese. They did, however, use their planes to bomb the Marines there, more or less constantly. Not to much effect though when all was taken into consideration. After even a few fighters arrived at Henderson Field the situation in the air started to inexorably, no matter how slowly, shift in favor of the Allies.

Finally, remember that while the Zero could reach Guadacnal it was a looooong flight and the crews had to be tired upon arrival. Once there, they only had a precious few minutes of air time over the target before being forced to return home. This was another huge advantage for the Allies, one which is, by the way, not modeled in WitP.

[Yamato hugger]

This is a fun game to play. Realistic it ain't.

I think this says a lot. People need to remember that this is a GAME, not a simulation. There are limits and you need to learn to stay within the limits.

If you want to model the 4 engine bombers attacking ships in a "historical" manner, take them off "naval attack" and put them on "naval search". In this manner, if they sight something they MIGHT attack it. And they MIGHT hit it. But it will be 1 aircraft bombing, which is seemingly the way they were employed.

[tabpub]

Agreed on the last. Early on, I like to set the Hudsons, Blenheims, Martins, et al. to 100 NS. Get to see all the Jap TFs better and was actually getting 1-2 hits from search planes a day once in a while (like every other day). The additional bennie is that they are all in the air searching when the Sallies and Lillies come visiting the home drome and they are not there to get pasted on the ground....[:'(]

[ChezDaJez]

I think the antiship ability of Nells and Betties must be downgraded, just like the ability of heavy bombers to hit moving warships or destroy grounded aircraft (althought their ability to destroy supplies should be increased). However, it must be noticed that the allies usually avoided opeartions or warships too close (300 nm) from bases where the Japanese had Nells or Betties until they got massive air superiority. If such operations were attempted in South Pacific before Rabaul was too weakened and the USN got air superiority, the USN would have probably lost more ships to these planes. My suggestion for Betties is to decrease durability to 30 and see what happens. They still must be treated with respect, but their losses will increase even if there isn´t air cover over their targets.
-Btw: Another way to decrease the effectiveness of Nells/Betties is to make their torpedo less accurate.

Personally, I think the best way to decrease bomber effectiveness (and fighters for that matter) is to decrease the pace of operations. That is the primary reason for the ahistorical results, not the accuracy of the bombs or torpedoes. In my opinion, fatigue levels should be based on the distance flown. The further the distance, the higher the fatigue. And when the fatigue gets to a certain point, operational losses go up and aircrew accuracy goes down.

And take away that ridiculous ability to transfer aircraft halfway across the Pacific and fly a long-range mission.

And along the same lines, ship crews should be subjected to fatigue also. The longer at sea, the more the fatigue.

Chez

[Bombur]

They flew and they made their attacks, it's just that in real life it's harder to sink a torpedo into a moving ship than it is in WitP. Also, in real life those Bettys were flying from Malarial bases where everyone was beat from the disease. It was bad enough on the Americans with all their infrastructural support; worse luck still for the Japanese in all cases. So to keep those Bettys flying was the trick. On top of all that, before you can hit something you have to know where it is. At Guadacanal the Japanese were taken by surprise and didn't react until the next day. In WitP it's much less probable that a USN TF could sneak in there in like. Wonder why? [;)]

Anyway, it's not as if the USN parked a hundred ships off Lunga Roads every day. For long stretches the sound was clear of shipping and so there was nothing to detect or attack by the Japanese. They did, however, use their planes to bomb the Marines there, more or less constantly. Not to much effect though when all was taken into consideration. After even a few fighters arrived at Henderson Field the situation in the air started to inexorably, no matter how slowly, shift in favor of the Allies.

Finally, remember that while the Zero could reach Guadacnal it was a looooong flight and the crews had to be tired upon arrival. Once there, they only had a precious few minutes of air time over the target before being forced to return home. This was another huge advantage for the Allies, one which is, by the way, not modeled in WitP.

-In some aspects you pointed, WiTP seems to be accurate. In my Guadalcanal scenario (human vs. human) the Betties took very high losses and achieved very few when I used them to attack Guadalcanal. They must be escorted by A6M2´s, and their escorts suffer 2:1 losses vs. enemy fighters, including P-39´s. The A6M3 doesn´t have enough range to reach Guadalcanal from Rabaul and this have an impact in the number of escorts, so it seems the game actually models some of these troubles. The effectiveness of Betties, however, increased drastically when my opponent send his ships to Munda and Buin before he could supress Rabaul.

[Bombur]

Personally, I think the best way to decrease bomber effectiveness (and fighters for that matter) is to decrease the pace of operations. That is the primary reason for the ahistorical results, not the accuracy of the bombs or torpedoes. In my opinion, fatigue levels should be based on the distance flown. The further the distance, the higher the fatigue. And when the fatigue gets to a certain point, operational losses go up and aircrew accuracy goes down.

And take away that ridiculous ability to transfer aircraft halfway across the Pacific and fly a long-range mission.

And along the same lines, ship crews should be subjected to fatigue also. The longer at sea, the more the fatigue.

Chez

-Correct, but we have only the editor to tweak those things and the changes you suggests cannot be dealt by the editor, althought a patch would be good.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I think the antiship ability of Nells and Betties must be downgraded, just like the ability of heavy bombers to hit moving warships or destroy grounded aircraft (althought their ability to destroy supplies should be increased). However, it must be noticed that the allies usually avoided opeartions or warships too close (300 nm) from bases where the Japanese had Nells or Betties until they got massive air superiority. If such operations were attempted in South Pacific before Rabaul was too weakened and the USN got air superiority, the USN would have probably lost more ships to these planes. My suggestion for Betties is to decrease durability to 30 and see what happens. They still must be treated with respect, but their losses will increase even if there isn´t air cover over their targets.
-Btw: Another way to decrease the effectiveness of Nells/Betties is to make their torpedo less accurate.

Personally, I think the best way to decrease bomber effectiveness (and fighters for that matter) is to decrease the pace of operations. That is the primary reason for the ahistorical results, not the accuracy of the bombs or torpedoes. In my opinion, fatigue levels should be based on the distance flown. The further the distance, the higher the fatigue. And when the fatigue gets to a certain point, operational losses go up and aircrew accuracy goes down.

And take away that ridiculous ability to transfer aircraft halfway across the Pacific and fly a long-range mission.

And along the same lines, ship crews should be subjected to fatigue also. The longer at sea, the more the fatigue.

Chez

Fatigue for ship crews would be a step in the right direction. There ought to also be a training mechanic for crews of different ships working with one another. That was one of the primary reasons why the Japanese were so superior to the USN in night combat: they mainly kept their destroyer and cruiser divisions together as integral units who were used to working with one another, whereas the USN just sort of cobbled assets together at the last moment in an ad hoc fashion. The results speak for themselves.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

They flew and they made their attacks, it's just that in real life it's harder to sink a torpedo into a moving ship than it is in WitP. Also, in real life those Bettys were flying from Malarial bases where everyone was beat from the disease. It was bad enough on the Americans with all their infrastructural support; worse luck still for the Japanese in all cases. So to keep those Bettys flying was the trick. On top of all that, before you can hit something you have to know where it is. At Guadacanal the Japanese were taken by surprise and didn't react until the next day. In WitP it's much less probable that a USN TF could sneak in there in like. Wonder why? [;)]

Anyway, it's not as if the USN parked a hundred ships off Lunga Roads every day. For long stretches the sound was clear of shipping and so there was nothing to detect or attack by the Japanese. They did, however, use their planes to bomb the Marines there, more or less constantly. Not to much effect though when all was taken into consideration. After even a few fighters arrived at Henderson Field the situation in the air started to inexorably, no matter how slowly, shift in favor of the Allies.

Finally, remember that while the Zero could reach Guadacnal it was a looooong flight and the crews had to be tired upon arrival. Once there, they only had a precious few minutes of air time over the target before being forced to return home. This was another huge advantage for the Allies, one which is, by the way, not modeled in WitP.

-In some aspects you pointed, WiTP seems to be accurate. In my Guadalcanal scenario (human vs. human) the Betties took very high losses and achieved very few when I used them to attack Guadalcanal. They must be escorted by A6M2´s, and their escorts suffer 2:1 losses vs. enemy fighters, including P-39´s. The A6M3 doesn´t have enough range to reach Guadalcanal from Rabaul and this have an impact in the number of escorts, so it seems the game actually models some of these troubles. The effectiveness of Betties, however, increased drastically when my opponent send his ships to Munda and Buin before he could supress Rabaul.

My opponent in PBEM is Chez and as he's already occupied Lunga I have a feeling he'll start to occupy the rest of the Solomons as well. That being the case I'm not sure I'll take the historical route through that archipelago but just bypass it entirely and let whatever he's stuffed in there rot away on the old vine while I find a different route to his home islands.

Whatever, there is little that's "accurate" with this game system. When you do find "accuracy" it's a coincidence, not something thoughtfully engineered into the game's mechanics. There is just too much BS up front that was installed and which anyone familiar with Gary's past Pacific efforts recognizes all too clearly to call WitP anything other than yet another PacWar on a grander scale still. It's fun to play around with, don't get me wrong; but it is frustrating as all getout for those who take their history seriously. It is a game, first and last, not a serious historical simulation.

[Feinder]

While I would be all for slowing down the pace of bomber operations, one of the reasons that bomber ops are so stepped up, is that, the pace of everything else is stepped up. Invasion fleets are swarming the DEI and the Solomons like locusts. Burma collapses in just 3 weeks.

The pace of EVERYTHING is too fast.

Players are employing the LBA in ahistorical means, because they need to react to an ahistorical threat.

-F-

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

While I would be all for slowing down the pace of bomber operations, one of the reasons that bomber ops are so stepped up, is that, the pace of everything else is stepped up. Invasion fleets are swarming the DEI and the Solomons like locusts. Burma collapses in just 3 weeks.

The pace of EVERYTHING is too fast.

Players are employing the LBA in ahistorical means, because they need to react to an ahistorical threat.

-F-

Well as I said before, you cant think of this as a simulation. Players of the game know more about the enemies dispositions and capibilities then their real life counterparts. If there was a way to vary the set up, ie free deployment of Dutch units in the DEI, free deployment of US/Phil forces in the PI ect. Perhaps some random on how much of the Pac Fleet is in the South Pacific, a random on how much of the Brit fleet in East Africia / Suez / South Africa is in the Indian Ocean, ect. THEN the Jap probably wouldnt come swooping in. The "shock attack" and pursuit is a problem. Units shouldnt be able to use the rail or road movement rates when advancing into enemy territory, this would slow the attack on Malaya and Burma considerably.

It is a game. You cant look at history and measure your performance by it.

[Mike Scholl]

YAMATO HUGGER You keep saying "It's a game, not a simulation." Well it was supposed to be a simulation game. As a simulation it would be worth the price. If all it is is a "game" then the level of detail is a waste, and the price excessive. After all, in a game, you can make up everything as you go along which means there doesn't need to be any money wasted on research. "It's a game" is a cop out. A simulation was what was promised.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

YAMATO HUGGER You keep saying "It's a game, not a simulation." Well it was supposed to be a simulation game. As a simulation it would be worth the price. If all it is is a "game" then the level of detail is a waste, and the price excessive. After all, in a game, you can make up everything as you go along which means there doesn't need to be any money wasted on research. "It's a game" is a cop out. A simulation was what was promised.

Mike, I seriously do not mean any disrespect when I say this, but if you think you will be able to re-create history with this, you are dreaming. Yes, I would like to see it also, but lets face it, there isnt enough time and money available to do everything that would need to be done, nor would everyone agree on what should be done to make it so.

So I accept that it is a game and play it as it is. I dont know why that is so hard for some people (and I am not pointing fingers) to accept.

I mean really, lets think about it. To be a simulation first off we have to put something in so 1 squadron of B-25s can not only be loaded on a CV, but it has to be able to fly off, attack a target, and land at anotehr base. That is for starters. It gets complicated from there.

Edit:
And the biggest stumbling block for it being a simulation is the fact that both sides know exactly what the other side has where and when what units are due to arrive. Now granted, a few turnes into it individual units positions are moved, but as the British, would you EVER, in ANY game as the Allies send troops to Singapore?. That in and of itself prevents players from doing what the real on site commanders did.

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

While I would be all for slowing down the pace of bomber operations, one of the reasons that bomber ops are so stepped up, is that, the pace of everything else is stepped up. Invasion fleets are swarming the DEI and the Solomons like locusts. Burma collapses in just 3 weeks.

The pace of EVERYTHING is too fast.

Players are employing the LBA in ahistorical means, because they need to react to an ahistorical threat.

-F-

You will see real fast operations: wait till the allies move in late 43 and 44 it is faster than the Japanese moved. I have got to the point that every thing is based on the Japanese movement. How many will complain when the allies are moving at lighting speed later in the war. I bet few will

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

YAMATO HUGGER You keep saying "It's a game, not a simulation." Well it was supposed to be a simulation game. As a simulation it would be worth the price. If all it is is a "game" then the level of detail is a waste, and the price excessive. After all, in a game, you can make up everything as you go along which means there doesn't need to be any money wasted on research. "It's a game" is a cop out. A simulation was what was promised.

So true.

[Bombur]

Whatever, there is little that's "accurate" with this game system. When you do find "accuracy" it's a coincidence, not something thoughtfully engineered into the game's mechanics.

-I don´t know if I agree with you. From my experience, it seems that the fatigue and disruption of both fighters and bombers flying long distances to attack target is included in game calculations. The Betties seem to be much more efficient when striking at 300 nm than when they make those 600 torpedo bomber attacks. Same thing on escorting Zeroes, althought this could be a result of having more escorts for shorter range attacks. I don´t think we have a coincidence here, but then we are back to statistics and calculation, and, maybe, I´m wrong on my statement. Many of things we argue here are based on our impressions, not in observational studies made with proper methodology.....

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

Whatever, there is little that's "accurate" with this game system. When you do find "accuracy" it's a coincidence, not something thoughtfully engineered into the game's mechanics.

-I don´t know if I agree with you. From my experience, it seems that the fatigue and disruption of both fighters and bombers flying long distances to attack target is included in game calculations. The Betties seem to be much more efficient when striking at 300 nm than when they make those 600 torpedo bomber attacks. Same thing on escorting Zeroes, althought this could be a result of having more escorts for shorter range attacks. I don´t think we have a coincidence here, but then we are back to statistics and calculation, and, maybe, I´m wrong on my statement. Many of things we argue here are based on our impressions, not in observational studies made with proper methodology.....

I doubt if you're right re the Bettys and Zeros with re to fatigue on individual flights, but I don't know. Fatigue is a modifier for combat, but I don't think it's kept track of in flight.

Regardless of that, it shouldn't take a lot of hifalutin methodology to see this game system is not especially realistic. It broadly covers its subject, and for all the chrome that's about it.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

YAMATO HUGGER You keep saying "It's a game, not a simulation." Well it was supposed to be a simulation game. As a simulation it would be worth the price. If all it is is a "game" then the level of detail is a waste, and the price excessive. After all, in a game, you can make up everything as you go along which means there doesn't need to be any money wasted on research. "It's a game" is a cop out. A simulation was what was promised.

-I agree with you, this game can be considered a simulation. The trouble is that the amount of detail involved is such that it is very hard to create a perfect simulation. Some variables involved must be simplified or even ignored to achieve a compromise between playability and detail level (for instance, the limits of disposable torpedo ordnance for Japanese medium bombers). As a whole the game will give results close to historical ones unless you have a big difference between the skills of players (of course, lucky also counts, but it counted in real life too). An important point is that both sides have more knowledge about their enemies than the historical leaders had, but this is true for all historical wargaming. Take the Midway battle, for instance, it´s almost impossible to reproduce the results of the battle in a simulation because the Japanese player know what gave the historical results and will take steps to prevent it (by making more agressive search, by sparing two carriers for antiship operations while using the other two to make the first attack, by using BB´s as a screening force in an attempt to engage US carriers and so on). However, when we have a big campaign game, like this, we have a very good level of fog of war and unpredictability, given the huge size of map, many areas not being acessable to reconaissance and the multiple offensive/defensive options.
-On the other hand, I would say the game engine needs some obvious changes. Night bombing is one. The effects of IJN medium bombers vs. surface targets are other, but those planes still must be able to inflict lots of damage to the allied player that risks too much his surface ships (and Carriers). The ability of bombers (particularly the heavy ones) to destroy planes in the ground should be decreased (and maybe their ability to destroy supplies and troops could be improved). Same thing the effects of level bombers vs. moving warships. I have the impression that IJN subs are almost useless, even in 1942, maybe this should be corrected (allied subs seems to be less than useful too). I don´t know if mines were so powerful in real life. Surface combat seems ok. to me, and air to air combat is not bad. Logistics must be improved, particularly the requirements for medium and heavy bomber maintenance. And, of course, planes should use fuel, not supplies, to fly, this particular aspect of the game makes air operations easier for the Japanese. We should have lots of tankers taking Av gas to all distant bases in the Pacific. There is a lot of room from improvement, but I think WiTP could became the ultimate Pacific war simulation.

[Bombur]

I doubt if you're right re the Bettys and Zeros with re to fatigue on individual flights, but I don't know. Fatigue is a modifier for combat, but I don't think it's kept track of in flight.

Regardless of that, it shouldn't take a lot of hifalutin methodolgy to see this game system is not especially realistic. It broadly covers its subject, and for all the chrome that's about it.

-Well, let´s ask to Matrix staff. Are fatigue and heavier operational losses modeled in long range attacks for both fighters and bombers?

[Mike Scholl]

BOMBUR At least you seem to have grasped the real point..., it was supposed to be a detailed simulation of the War in the Pacific. I doubt any of us who purchased it expected perfection on the first attempt, but 2by3 had a good track record of supporting their games so we had high hopes. Unfortunately they seem to have "hard-coded" far too many of their poorer choices into the game, and too often when a lagitimate problem surfaces they can't/won't fix it.

Then they promised an AI that was at least capable of giving the player a game. Surprisingly, this was provided---but only at the cost of having to butcher a lot more of reality to give (A)nimated (I)gnorance a fighting chance. So all of a sudden the "simulation" that was worried about the individual specs of a number of obscure A/C and Weapons has become a "game"..., and it really doesn't matter if the results coming out of it are silly. Truely a big dissappointment for a lot of us.

[m10bob]

I suspect the reason so many of us are finding fault with the game engine itself,(the "hard-coded" problems),is that this group of people is probably a lot more sophisticated and history concious than the "average" so-called game-player..
If this was a game I could play in 1964 while munching greasy pizza and reading an old copy of Air Classics,I'd likely be astounded,but having been in a war and around the world a couple of times has opened my eyes a lot.I know this has been a common experience for a lot of us,and to sum it up,we just expect more....