Hordes of Tonys

[Feinder]

While it could be said in all truth that, there is no greater Allied Heavy-Bomber fanboy on this board than myself, this is certainly suspect :

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x PB4Y Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 10, on fire
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 10, on fire

Suspect as in, not doubting Dude's AAR but; as much as I love the heavies, even I will conceed, "No f_cking way."

31 level-bombers, scoring 20 hits.

Within the described WitP model, a level-bomber cannot get more than one hit, since all the bombs are dropped in a stick. That means 66% of those bombers successfully hit the target. I'm sure they are experienced crews, but 66% hit rate makes even me shake my head.

I'd say it appears to be rolling a hit chance for EACH bomb on the bombers, until one hits, and then moves on to the next bomber. Rather flawed, since the bombs are supposed to reprsent a "stick", with ONE hit chance. With B-24s having 8 or 12 bombs (whatever it is), that's 8 - 12 rolls for a hit for each bomber, which would dramatically inflate the probability of actually scoring a hit compared to a single hit roll per plane.

And while I also squawk about not being able to scratch the paint on IJN BBs, constant and sustained "plinking" will run up damage quickly thru the fire damage. I'd bet Kongo and Yamato not are not in a happy place. No where near going down, but from my own tests, it -is- possible to plink a large ship to death.

Regards,
-F-

[Nikademus]

Personally i dont like the train by bombing the empty base tactic for reasons similar to the evac the LCU fragment. (which i still dont do despite the exp bug being fixed) there's reality, and then there's game effect. Its not a matter of whether or not it was done in real life. Its the effect thats the point.

My frustration with this is also due to the fact that i put alot of effort into getting the training mission time-frame parameters adjusted to reflect realistic training schedules. (they used to be ridiculously fast....you could sit an airgroup on the ground and take it from 10 to 50 in less than 30 days) Now they work along a similar schedule to that estimated by the USN during wartime (about 3 months from newbie to graduate)

Now, you can just bomb bases and get your airgroups up to 70 in a hurry. If op losses were impacted by exp it would be one thing as that would temper player's putting them on actual missions, milk run or otherwise lest they risk both pilot and plane, but they are not hence there's no govenor on the tactic. It also leads to funny situations that would produce the opposite results in real life. For example, the IJN found that it actually needed to re-train/refresh many of it's DB pilots after tours in china because their use as ground support pilots actually caused their anti-ship targeting skills to degrade a bit. Its after all, quite a different notion to bomb a moving ship vs a static ground target. Same for fighters. Straffing or bombing an empty aifield doesn't make you an exp 70 pilot in terms of A2A combat.

So while yes....historically "milk run" missions were done to give newbie pilots some seasoning, there's still reality and then there's how the tactic works in the game. As such i limit myself in my PBEM's in regards to this tactic. I never leave a base unconquored on purpose for the express purpose of target practice and I dont mass import air units to China (as Japan) to ground target train them up.

In the end its up the to players to decide their own playing styles of course.

[rtrapasso]

rtrapasso-From waht I recall, their were non listed for the central pacific in my figures, and they did include all P-38's available for the Pacific, including those in Alaska, and the 600% was for all planes available at a given date which I posted before inthat long thread. The figure is corect as I pointed out in the other thread, though my spelling erros are hard to wade through I konw it is their.

The thread on the Cannons and MG was left by me because those particapating in it beyond a certain point proved largely incabale of learning anything new, which is at this point a given I am afraid for some folks on this board, but it is mute if thier happy, I am not hear to tell them their is no god.

In reply: (i am not sure i completely understand what you said) in WITP, P-38s that were on the West Coast (i.e. defending San Francisco, San Diego, etc.) were not included in the figures i saw posted in the discussion about P-38 available in the Pacific. In WITP, any P-38s that were so assigned in the war would be available ANYWHERE in the Pacific. Fortunately or unfortunately, this was how the game was designed. In the actual war, these never made it to the fighting. In WITP, they can (and generally will be) made available because of various things the players can do (like use PPs, reassign the West Coast bases other fighter types, etc.) Large numbers of P-38s were kept of the West Coast for "home defense" according to what i have read. I guess you would have to trace every P-38 produced and where they went to settle the argument (and even then i am not sure that would convince everyone).

As for the MG vs. cannon discussion: i expect that the cannons ARE underrated in the game, but not to the degree you stated. However, iirc, the USAAF (and probably others) did experiments with replacing the 50 cal. with 20 mm. cannon in at least some aircraft, but the experiments didn't work out as the cannon proponents hoped, and the idea was dropped. And, as i pointed out, at least one air force (RAF) decided that in fighter vs. fighter contests, the MG armed Spit was better than the cannon armed Hurri, but of course the Spit was more maneuverable. However, in comparing the Bf-109 vs. the Spits of the Battle of Britain, the two come out about equal if one looks at the numerous comparisons that have been made (some rate Spit better, and some rate the Bf-109 better) - and of course the Messerschmidt had cannon, and the Spit didn't (in BoB). I really don't think there was the discrepancy in fire power between the two that your suggested revisions would make.

Don't know if one could settle the argument, but i think it is all moot given where the game is in development. One could always make one's own mod, of course.

As far as that goes, i really find it kind of funny to see that of all the huge problems that WITP has historically speaking, that these are almost totally ignored in discussions on the forum, and people instead are screaming about why they don't have an extra point in firepower or maneuverability (i.e. in other threads) insteading of looking at how all the weird, nonhistorical events can possibly come about in this "simulation".

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I'd say it appears to be rolling a hit chance for EACH bomb on the bombers, until one hits, and then moves on to the next bomber.

I would suspect you are 100% correct. And if its true, this IS a problem if it is doing it this way.

Mog or Frag (pretty sure it was Mog) once said that ASW only attacks with 6 ships maximum. I suspect that too works the same way. Take a 25 ship ASW group and it attempts to attack until 6 have attacked. This too is wrong. Should only roll the first 6, period.

[Tom Hunter]

Yamato Hugger

Gen. Hoepner has provided lots of data showing how effective night bombing can be in The Italian Job AAR. He should have suggested people read it to see more, but the information is there. His opponent uses night bombing almost every day of the war and Hoepner has tried increasing AA concentrations, putting CAP over the base and everything else he can think of. So far no luck in stopping the bombers.

pauk

I don't agree with you on the pilots question. My experience in games with very high aircraft attrition compared to other AARs with low aircraft attrition leads me to believe that pilots are key up to a point, but if aircraft are being destroyed faster than they replace then airframes becomes the critical issue.

I don't think very many Allied players understand this. There are regular complaints about running out P40s and occasional complaints about Hurricanes or other types of aircraft. My impression is that once the complainer runs out of his favored type he pulls back to wait for more planes to build up. The problem is that strategy helps the Japanese who have the advantage of large production of single types, interior lines of communications, and because of the Allied pullback in the face of casualties, the initiative.

Any player with replacements, interior lines and the intitiative is going to win.

Since the Japanese have low airframe casualties in these circumstances the pilots become the key factor for defeating the Japanese.

But if the Allied player exposes the Japanese to combat ops in as many places as possible the picture changes and aircraft production becomes much more important.



These are the losses as of May 8th 1942 in my game with Blackwatch. It is possible that he built 600 Zeros during the first four months of the game, but its unlikely that another 600 Oscars were built and the loss of over 2900 aircarft in the first 4 months of the war is likely to constrain operations regardless of the pilot quality.

However inflicting these losses takes serious effort on the part of the Allies. Perhaps most important is spreading the combat among many types of planes. For example Fleet Air Arm Fulmars have shot down 40 Japanese planes, and the 211/1 F4F3s that start at Wake have 70 kills. Both of these types also have significant casualties 15 Fulmars have been shot down 7% of the available aircraft, and 127 F4F3s have been lost, 115 in air to air combat. Many Allied players upgrade the F4F3s and lose access to the replacement pool, and Allied players often have a poor regard for the Fulmar, limiting it's exposure to combat.

When Allied players avoid combat until they have a chance at air superiority the Japanese build up large pools of aircraft and the pilot quality matters a lot. Once the Allies actaully damage the pilot pool they get a decisive edge and push the Japanese into a downward spiral.

But if the Allies mis-calculate the Japanese win the air battle. Then you get complaints about too many Tony's, or not enough P40s etc.

If the Allied players seek combat more often and attrition on both sides is high across aircraft types than these issues don'e exist. The game plays very differently, and airframe availability becomes much more important.

I don't think there is one problem or one answer in this game. Lots of players seem to be conviced that the game is causing them a particular problem when really its the way they are playing that creates the mess they are in.

[Speedysteve]

Hi Tom,

Totally agree on the NB. Hoepner's AAR is great evidence for this. Hence I never use NBing.

Steven

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Yamato Hugger

Gen. Hoepner has provided lots of data showing how effective night bombing can be in The Italian Job AAR. He should have suggested people read it to see more, but the information is there. His opponent uses night bombing almost every day of the war and Hoepner has tried increasing AA concentrations, putting CAP over the base and everything else he can think of. So far no luck in stopping the bombers.

Tom, I dont dispute for 1 second that the 4E bombers dont work right. Also, I dont have the time to read AARs. It would be nice if people posted all the facts when they are saying something. Cut and paste is wonderful, no?

If you recall, about 6 months ago I had a thread that said to my knowledge no strategic bomber had ever hit a moving ship at sea. Several people have said that it did indeed happen, but was usually a case of the bomber on a search mission attacking at low altitude. I am not for 1 second defending the game engine on this.

What people dont seem to see is the fact that over 20% of the bombers were shot down on the spot, and this total could well have run to 25 or even 30% if you count the crashes on the way home from the strike. This too is very un-realistic. How many bombing raids did 4E bombers participate in where 25% of the bombers didnt come back? Not too often.

Sometimes people cant see the forest through the trees.

(Side note, the 500 pounder isnt supposed to do any damage to BBs thus the reason for my statement regarding that.)

[Brady]

rtrapasso-Part of the reasion that P-38's are at from what my math showes and my referances indicated, at a 600% increase over those historicaly available, is that, the replacement rate is so high that all Units slated to upgrade to them (all P-39 and P-400 units0 can do so by late Dec. 42 or Very early Jan 43, from what I recall no P-38 units per say were on the West Coast, all were sent to the War zone because they were desperatly neaded by all theaters. From what I recall from my postings before, I looked at all Pacific theaters, and again the abaility to rapidely convert the P-39's/P400's is extreamly unhistorical. The P-38 ariving early gives the Allied player an abality to prodeject power at range unlike he had in real life, at least in game in a manner that was unavailable in terms of scale that we see in WiTP, this coupled with the totaly unrelastic capabalitys of the 4 Engined bombers in game is alowing the Allies to move to quick in the Parity perioud Late 42/43 of the Game, that is their is as a result no realy parity perioud, depending on how the game play works out that is. Their are many planes that of course arive in unhistoric numbers, but these pkanes efect the outcome and conduct of the game in a potentinaly unrealistic manner.

MG/Cannon: US Use of cannon in plnaes was tried and adopted for a few types (F4U-1C, P61,Helldive, ect...) Some plane types simply didnet have the structure for it, the P-51 as an example, also the US had some serious isues with the Cannon of choice the Hispano, their were seriose reliabality isues with the US built weapons, theu were not made to the tollerances that the British bult ones were and as a result suffered, to the extent that US designers droped the idea for the most part, even in they types that adopted it they had a hard time maintiang them, some planes like the P-38 often took the cannon out as a result. Also as noted before the .50 cal was readaly available in large numbers and prety much all types that we wnet to war with were desigened to use this weapon, it can be looked at like the sherman in a way, mas produced and available but not by any menas the best in it's class.
The original intent with the Spit and the Hurricane was to equipe them with the 8 pack of 303's (or a 6 pack)this proved less efective than a couple of cannons, the Huricane could take 4 Hispanons in the wing the Spits could not fit 4 cannons and had to settle with two(or 4 303's) MG and two cannons, The Spit MK IIB was the first of the cannon armed varients and came out in Spet. 1940, all subsquent Spits were armed with at lest two Hispanos, and either 4-303's or two 50cals as well, the spit could not take 4 cannosn in the wing. Spitfires were more suxcesfull than Huricanes becuse of the tremendious preformances advantages that the 109's had over the Huricnaes, the 109's and the Spits were far more competative and thus the spits faired far better. but the Brits upguned them with cannons as soon as they could. the 109's in the BoB had two MG FF cannons and two 7.9mm mg's, the MG were very low velicity weaposn and were hard to get hits with unless you were close much like the Type 99 MK I's in the Zeros, the problem the Germs had was that unlike the Zeros they had no manauver advantage over the spits, nore spead advantge as many Zeros had over their apontets, and had to rely on timing traing and spead to get in place to get a kill.

I agree that their are bigger fish to fry espichaly since as you point out these things can be changed, it just o much in game hinges on the firpower and manuaver ratios, and so many see these in a light that is not realy reflective of the true nature of things, largely becuase they have been fed the wrong info on it for years.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Brady


rtrapasso-Part of the reasion that P-38's are at from what my math showes and my referances indicated, at a 600% increase over those historicaly available, is that, the replacement rate is so high that all Units slated to upgrade to them (all P-39 and P-400 units0 can do so by late Dec. 42 or Very early Jan 43, from what I recall no P-38 units per say were on the West Coast, all were sent to the War zone because they were desperatly neaded by all theaters. From what I recall from my postings before, I looked at all Pacific theaters, and again the abaility to rapidely convert the P-39's/P400's is extreamly unhistorical. The P-38 ariving early gives the Allied player an abality to prodeject power at range unlike he had in real life, at least in game in a manner that was unavailable in terms of scale that we see in WiTP, this coupled with the totaly unrelastic capabalitys of the 4 Engined bombers in game is alowing the Allies to move to quick in the Parity perioud Late 42/43 of the Game, that is their is as a result no realy parity perioud, depending on how the game play works out that is. Their are many planes that of course arive in unhistoric numbers, but these pkanes efect the outcome and conduct of the game in a potentinaly unrealistic manner.

MG/Cannon: US Use of cannon in plnaes was tried and adopted for a few types (F4U-1C, P61,Helldive, ect...) Some plane types simply didnet have the structure for it, the P-51 as an example, also the US had some serious isues with the Cannon of choice the Hispano, their were seriose reliabality isues with the US built weapons, theu were not made to the tollerances that the British bult ones were and as a result suffered, to the extent that US designers droped the idea for the most part, even in they types that adopted it they had a hard time maintiang them, some planes like the P-38 often took the cannon out as a result. Also as noted before the .50 cal was readaly available in large numbers and prety much all types that we wnet to war with were desigened to use this weapon, it can be looked at like the sherman in a way, mas produced and available but not by any menas the best in it's class.
The original intent with the Spit and the Hurricane was to equipe them with the 8 pack of 303's (or a 6 pack)this proved less efective than a couple of cannons, the Huricane could take 4 Hispanons in the wing the Spits could not fit 4 cannons and had to settle with two(or 4 303's) MG and two cannons, The Spit MK IIB was the first of the cannon armed varients and came out in Spet. 1940, all subsquent Spits were armed with at lest two Hispanos, and either 4-303's or two 50cals as well, the spit could not take 4 cannosn in the wing. Spitfires were more suxcesfull than Huricanes becuse of the tremendious preformances advantages that the 109's had over the Huricnaes, the 109's and the Spits were far more competative and thus the spits faired far better. but the Brits upguned them with cannons as soon as they could. the 109's in the BoB had two MG FF cannons and two 7.9mm mg's, the MG were very low velicity weaposn and were hard to get hits with unless you were close much like the Type 99 MK I's in the Zeros, the problem the Germs had was that unlike the Zeros they had no manauver advantage over the spits, nore spead advantge as many Zeros had over their apontets, and had to rely on timing traing and spead to get in place to get a kill.

I agree that their are bigger fish to fry espichaly since as you point out these things can be changed, it just o much in game hinges on the firpower and manuaver ratios, and so many see these in a light that is not realy reflective of the true nature of things, largely becuase they have been fed the wrong info on it for years.

Well, my references on the P-38 obviously are different than yours, so i will agree to disagree. When i retire, maybe i can look into this more seriously, but as it is, time presses on me too hard.

As for the cannon stuff, i agree that cannons ARE underrated - as i said, just not to the degree you stated (at least what i REMEMBERED you stated).[:'(]

Yes, the air war model does hinge on firepower, etc. But the air war model is probably what is modelled BEST in the game (obviously not to your satisfaction) - much larger fish to worry about!

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Your "defense/explanation" is in truth a TOTAL CONDEMNATION of the game as unforgivably inaccurate. But instead of all screaming in unison for the designer's to FIX this mess, most of us are defending our little "pet pieces" of nonsense while attacking everyone else's. No wonder the term "FanBoy" keeps popping up on this forum? Are we all so completely wrapped up in "winning" with our favorite side that we can't come together and pillary the real villians---the clowns that put this garbage into a game while claiming to be producing a "simulation".

Admittedly several aspects of the game are inaccurate, but how historical do you want it? I mean, historically Japan never stood a chance. Everybody knew it. So if you model that to the last detail, who is going to want to play Japan? .....

This sums up the "GREAT DIVIDE" in the WitP community. Historically Japan NEVER stood a chance, absolutely right.
It seems the game was designed, or perhaps tweaked would be a better way of putting it, so Japan MIGHT be able to hang in there - on the basis that if Japan stands NO CHANCE at all - no one will play Japan.

The result is that some of us come to the table wanting everything as historic as possible so game play will yield historically probable outcomes under the circumstances in context.

Others of us want vastly more freedom to reshape the historical situation to see if history can be changed.

Personally, I fall into the first group. (I would gladly play Japan - knowing I have no chance of winning - it's the hanging in there to see what I could have done that intrigues me.)

I don't think the game is "junk". I think the game has the best potential of any I have ever seen. People like me just have to take comfort in the fact that the design team gave us an editor that can change anything we wish - short of game bugs.[8D]

This sure raises passions in this forum.

B

[Nikademus]

yet one more reason why i dislike manipulative production and had reservations on player controlled upgrades (though in the end i supported them as being better than a rigid locked system)

To me anyway, playing a game with all one type vs all one type on the other side (often the best that money can buy) is boring and not very historical. (The old Fw-190 vs Me-109 thing comes to mind) Again, in the end it comes down to player discipline and their philosophy on what kind of game they want to play.

Along Pry's lines, i did reduce P-38 production for my own mod to help curb things.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Your "defense/explanation" is in truth a TOTAL CONDEMNATION of the game as unforgivably inaccurate. But instead of all screaming in unison for the designer's to FIX this mess, most of us are defending our little "pet pieces" of nonsense while attacking everyone else's. No wonder the term "FanBoy" keeps popping up on this forum? Are we all so completely wrapped up in "winning" with our favorite side that we can't come together and pillary the real villians---the clowns that put this garbage into a game while claiming to be producing a "simulation".

Admittedly several aspects of the game are inaccurate, but how historical do you want it? I mean, historically Japan never stood a chance. Everybody knew it. So if you model that to the last detail, who is going to want to play Japan? Admittedly there are features of the game I don't like, but considering that from Turn one of the grand campaign most of the "historical circumstances" either materialize different'y, or never come to pass.

THIS DRIVES ME NUTS! Just what is it that you think is SUPPOSED to be "simulated" by this SIMULATION? Could it perhaps be the "Historical Pacific War? That's what a "simulation" game is supposed to recreate as closely as possible. As in providing (as closely as can be ascertained) the actual historicic units and equipment in the correct numbers at the correct time. Instead of just tossing piles of stuff in at random.

I look at this from how I have modeled WPO. In reality, there were some 60 DT-1 and DT-2 torpedo planes built. However, that won't do for wartime, so I allow more to be built. Now, lets start from turn 1 of WitP. From that turn, the war is different, yes? So, while the units are mostly there true to history, your problem is with the amount of equipment produced. Now, If the war proceedes different to history, why can't production?

In real life, Japan didn't take Midway or Pearl Harbor. Now, in WitP they can. If in history they had taken Midway or PH, don't you think that would have a bearing on how much equipment and materiel, and how fast it was produced? I'm all for modelling it down to the last plane and Medium Tank M4 produced, but to do that we'd have to represent everything else historically, and force Japan to do this, force them to attack here, etc.

The way I look at it is that the war proceeds differently than history, and as such things on the home front proceed differently. Now, since we aren't seing the Big Red One or Blood and Guts Patton in WitP, I'd say it does fairly well.

The problem with "oversimulating" events is the fact that in the game, they may never happen. FOr instance, a P-38 unit in New Guinea (I forget the Squadron.... I want to say 48th, but I don't know) ran out of spares, and was forced to switch to the P-47. Now, in WitP it may not run out of spares. But if we "historically simulate" everything, then whether the problem presents itself or not, that unit must upgrade to the P-47. So, considering the amount of planes lost is different, where they used are different, how they are used different, it only stands to reason that the number being built should be different.

There are two ways to look at this predicatament. The number of equipment or planes produced reflected how the battles were fought, or the way the battles were fought dictated the number of planes and equipment produced. Now, the way I look at it, it is a combination of both. To produce only the historic amount of equipment would force players in every instance to fight as was done hsitorricaly, which again broaches the question, why should I or anyone else play as Japan?

As to calling the devs clowns, and the game garbage... all I can say is make your game, and then let us have a look see and see if you modeled everything 100% correctly. WitP is not perfect. WPO is not perfect. But I am not going to say the game is nothing but garbage when I know I can't do better. Not saying you can't do better, if we are so wrapped up in whinning I see three options. Accept the game as is as a reasobaly accurate representation of the Pacific Conflict, continue denouncing those who made it, or make our own game, and make sure that it is far better than WitP by all accounts. I am a simple man, I'll choose the first one. I don't like everything about it, I have been bitten by several of its bugs, but, knowning I can't do a better game from the ground up, I am not going to call it garbage and the designers clowns.

Wow, that was kind of a rant.... time to go to bed....

For the record, I am not defending Matrix, I am not defending 2by3. But I am pointing out that if everything down to the last man and the last clip of .30-06 ammo was modeled, and every single historical situation was presented, I'd save myself the 80 bucks and read a book. And I sure as hell wouldn't play as Japan if I picked the game up in the bargain bin 3 years after release.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Admittedly several aspects of the game are inaccurate, but how historical do you want it? I mean, historically Japan never stood a chance. Everybody knew it. So if you model that to the last detail, who is going to want to play Japan? Admittedly there are features of the game I don't like, but considering that from Turn one of the grand campaign most of the "historical circumstances" either materialize different'y, or never come to pass.

I was promised a "detailed SIMULATION"..., so I want it as accurate as the designers can possibly make it. That's what a "detailed simulation" is supposed to be about. Now they also promised a powerful editor for those that want to play around with "what if's"..., and that's great! But the "basic game" should be the historical situation---not an abortion of history. Begin with "reality"---then allow the players to decide how much of the "wierd and wonderful" that want to add. The designers have taken this decision out of the player's hands..., and in the process failed to deliver on their promise.

[rtrapasso]

Along Pry's lines, i did reduce P-38 production for my own mod to help curb things.

So - was it reduced to 1/6 production (per Brady's claim) or what?

[Nikademus]

I dont recall at the moment i'm afraid. (at work) Maybe Pry or Speedy can give the figure. I dont think it was that severe a reduction. Bear in mind too that the P-38 in my mod is very durable and now has armor 2. I dont see the Japanese shooting down too many producing a shortage as long as not too many FG's are converted.

[Speedysteve]

I'll be WiTPing in a couple of hours. I'll have a butchers and let you know.

[Bombur]

An alternative would be to mod the scenario to make all advanced Japanese fighter twin engine planes. This will increase the costs to produce them (these planes were actually more costly to produce as they had bigger engines, were heavier and armored)

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Yes, this is one of the major problems of the game. A solution for this could be a house rule that Japan is not allowed to convert existing factories. Instead the Japanese player should have to build new factories if he wants to produce more Tonies or whatever he wants. This would prevent the Japanese player from streamlining his production in a totally ahistoric way when this option is not available to the Allied player while still keeping the option open for the Japanese player to produce what he wants, only that he'ld have to "pay" for it. Should restore balance (production-wise) to a certain degree and still give the Japanese player interesting options!

My problem isn’t really with Japans ability to produce different types of air frames in large quantities if he wishes. I have a problem with the high casualty rates. Here are the casualty totals in my game as of 20 May 1942 (we’re into early June now):



Combat is very intense when I base my aircraft forward, so most of my planes are sitting at second line bases for lack of replacement aircraft for about 90% of the time. Were my groups to stay in forward air bases 90% of the time (as was historically the case) these losses would be in the tens of thousands of airframes by now. But of course there are not enough replacements to support the overly bloody combat engine, so my planes sit idle in the rear for most of the war.

Even if I were to finagle this group here or transfer that group there and get other model aircraft into the fighting as some suggest, the fact remains the engine is too bloody and those planes would be at rear area bases too by now.

I suppose at some point it’s possible to overwhelm the Japanese production system as well, but I see no evidence of that as of yet. He has 25-50 zeroes at most front line airfields and they clean the skies of any allied planes I try to bring into my front line bases in a matter of only a few days thus far in our game.

Be careful with this statement: Loss rates (for both players) may vary in different PBEM's with different players. The "bloodiness" of air combat largely depends on player's actions.

I’d be curious to see others post their loss rates as well. My opponent is a very methodical player and never leaves an opening. He always comes in force and hasn’t run a shoestring operation yet. I’ve hammered away looking for weakness, but so far I’ve found none.

True enough, I always wondered why the Australian-Wirraway-Issue worried many Japanese players. Hurricanes (or even Spitfires) with their limited range are as useful as Wirraways to guard bases that are out of Japanese fighter range but are rather useless for offensive (escort) actions due to their limited range. Really no biggie, game-wise!

I too wonder in awe at some Japanese statements about the Wirraway. I thank my lucky stars I have them, otherwise Australia would be defenseless.

By giving the Allies total freedom, nobody would be playing Japan anymore. I always regarded the fixed Allied replacement rates as justified by representing the demands of the ETO not allowing for Allied production changes...

I didn’t mean to advocate that particular path or direction. I was only using it to point out the absurdity of a totally free Japan. Were they faced with an open ended allied production system I can hear the chorus of pain now. I’m just saying stop using history to try and hamstring the allies when Japans economy is NOTHING like historical and produces far and away too much of everything. Instead we should try to focus on getting the simulation to create historically accurate combat results.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

Wow I just looked at Tom's numbers vs. my games numbers and even though he's destroyed and lost well over twice as many airframes in his game, his opponent has flown over 100,000 more sorties in his game against him than my opponent has flown in my game agaisnt me. This shows no sign whatsoever of affecting the total Japanese air frames on map, in fact it increases Japans effectiveness because he is able to put more frames to use against Tom, thus flying far more sorties overall in 12 days less time.

But conversely Tom has flown 200,000 fewer total air sorties in his game than I have in mine. A clear sign that Japan is decimating the allied production system and Tom has fewer and fewer planes to fly on map.

Makes me wonder if the allies can really ever affect the Japanese ability to replace their air frame losses no matter what.

Jim

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My problem isn’t really with Japans ability to produce different types of air frames in large quantities if he wishes. I have a problem with the high casualty rates.

The problem mainly occurs (IMHO) when players use unhistorical large airstrikes. But I think that is less a problem of the air combat model than of the abundance of aviation support units in the game which allows players to amass such large numbers nearly everywhere on the map

I suppose at some point it’s possible to overwhelm the Japanese production system as well, but I see no evidence of that as of yet. He has 25-50 zeroes at most front line airfields and they clean the skies of any allied planes I try to bring into my front line bases in a matter of only a few days thus far in our game.

See above[;)].

I’d be curious to see others post their loss rates as well. My opponent is a very methodical player and never leaves an opening. He always comes in force and hasn’t run a shoestring operation yet. I’ve hammered away looking for weakness, but so far I’ve found none.

Just (this morning) received a turn (PBEM vs. Mogami) where the RAF/USAAF managed to kill 18 Zeros in air combat over Burma, own losses were 3 Spitfire and 1 P-40 Warhawk (Oct 1942, results from two air battles over Akyab and Mandalay). In this game I've got about 350+ Spits and Hurricanes in my force pool (overall air losses are about 900 Japanese vs. 1100 Allied I think). Till now, neither of us employed big hundreds-of-planes strikes in the game.