Matrix Games Forums

Russians Flying them aganst comparatively Unmanuaverable German planes is not a good example, P-39's were horably unmanuaverable planes, espichaly compared to Japanese ones, their so differnet in this regard you cant even compare the two, at any altitude.

This is the Report of a P-39 aganst a Zero:

"Take of was accomplished in formation on signal to initiate a climb from sea leval to 5,000 ft indicated. The P-39D-1 was drawing 3000 rpm and 70 inches manifold preshure on take off when the engine started to detonate, so manifold preshure was reduced to 52 inches. The Aircobra left the ground first arrived at 5,000 ft indicated just as the Zero was passing 4,000 ft indicated. This amnifold preshure of 52 inches could be maintained to 4,500 feet indicated. At 5,000 ft from a cruising speed of 230 mph indicated the P-39 had a marked acceleration away from the Zero. At 10,000 ft indicated,from a crusing speed of 220 mph the Aircobra still accelerated away from the Zero rapidely. Climbing from 10,000 to 15,000 ft both aircraft maintainted equile rates up to 12,500 ft, above this altitude the Zero Walked away from the P-39.
Climb from 15,000 to 20,000 feet indicated, the Zero took immediate advantage and left the Airacobra. The climb from 20,000 feet to 25,000 feet was not compleated as the aircobra was running low on fuel.*
On a streight climb to altitude from take off under the same condations as before, the Aircobra maintained the advantage in climb untill reaching 14,800 ft indicated. Above this altitude the p-39 was left behind reaching 25,000 ft 5 minutes behind the Zero. At 25,000 ft from a crusing speed of 180 mph indicated, the Zero Excelerated away from the P-39 for three ship lengths this lead was maintainted for 1.5 minutes and it took the P-39 another 30 seconds to gain a lead of one ship length."

P-400's btw did not have any Oxygen equipment and could not operate over 10,00 ft anyway.

ORIGINAL: Brady


It's the process...

Why do we play this game, why do we keep playing this game, why did we buy it, because it ain't easy. Why are we debating this game, why do we pounder the pounderable, because it is dificult, were hear to fight for what we want our vishion, ultamately a colective one a great scheam that we all ultimatly contribute some small part to. it's been what two years now nearly since the game came out? This has been their plan all along you see, were all caught up in some kinda uber Beta Test, eveuntaily the real game will come out and will still look for ways to tweak it. Thats the fun part, the game it's self the playing of it, heck that just gives us food for thought on what to tweak and how to do that.[:)]

Well stated Brady. I remember the first time that I saw this game. The air-to-air combat animations were extremely similar to a game I had played (maybe 15) years ago. The ship-to-ship combat animations were barely recognizable as those fron the earlier game but they were recognizable. If my memory is accurate there wasn't any land combat in that game or that it was insignificant as far as game play went. UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THAT GAME. I believe that there has been MANY revisions to the original and I believe that there will be many more!

"A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for."

[:)][:)]


I personally would like too see Witp have an option NON-HISTORICAL.
You start with basic building pools for the navy and army.

Therefore, I could build what I wanted and research the planes I wanted to use.

Or at least as a Japanese played replace the outdated Ki-43 Oscar IIa, and the mighty
Ki-51 Sonia. with Air Balloons.

Of course will we not discuss the fact that allied players can upgrade B-18A Bolo’s to B29 Super Fortress’s.

This game already has a built in non historical start.[;)]
It's called a 20 day free bonus move for the entire IJN with no fuel expenditure.[:D]

The lack of Japanese planes by 1943 is somewhat irrelevent, if you can use actual history as a guideline, because according to probably EVERY account, written by actual Japanese pilots/participants of that war (who survived), the Bushido code made the use of parachutes "unmanly", and so pilots who might have survived, chose to ride their pepperred crates to oblivion.
(WITP therefore should NEVER allow messages of Japanese pilots "surviving bail-outs" before sometime in 1944, when the High Command finally ordered the pilots to use 'chutes.)

You're pretty close on the use of parachutes but the choice to wear one or not rested with the individual. Some chose to wear them, others not. The ones that did were not looked down upon by their peers. The parachutes were actually commonly worn by army multi-engine bomber crews where weight wasn't a percieved issue. The AVG reported on many occasions Japanese crewmen bailing out of their burning aircraft, especially if they were over or near their own territory.

Among the Navy fighter pilots many chose not to wear the chutes because they felt they needed to keep their aircraft as light as possible for range and maneuverability. Its the same reason why many pilots had the radios (what few there were) removed from their fighters. Simply a matter of personal choice. IIRC Saburo Sakai was wearing a chute when he was wounded and considered bailing out but didn't because he determined that his aircraft was still flyable and he had no desire to become shark bait.

Still, many who wore the chutes chose to ride their aircraft in over enemy lines rather than be captured. That's where the Bushido code comes in- preventing the disgrace of capture.

CHez

Mr. Halsey:


Yes have you noticed, that is to compensate for the small transports that travel at 10 knots, when they reach nine knots (with every move) a 1 point system failure occurs, and then the Japanese Transports will only move one hex per turn?????????????
This is called allied sub bait.

However, what I find intriguing is how well place the allied submarines are located on December 7, 1941.

So the allied forces knew exactly where the Japanese where sending there landing forces.

So amazed.

Still this is a great game, and yea I am A JAPNESE FAN DUDE!!!!!!!!!

ORIGINAL: Jonny_B

Mr. Halsey:


Yes have you noticed, that is to compensate for the small transports that travel at 10 knots, when they reach nine knots (with every move) a 1 point system failure occurs, and then the Japanese Transports will only move one hex per turn?????????????
This is called allied sub bait.

However, what I find intriguing is how well place the allied submarines are located on December 7, 1941.

So the allied forces knew exactly where the Japanese where sending there landing forces.

So amazed.

Still this is a great game, and yea I am A JAPNESE FAN DUDE!!!!!!!!!

Actually the Allies had quite good intel on the Japanese Malaya invasion fleets

Mr. treespider:



Of course the allies knew sometime was coming, just where this something was going to happen, was in conflict with the American navy and army intelligence.

I do not mind that the allied submarines are statically located around Malaya, it’s a computer game an small details like this are to be enjoyed, as the Dutch submarines sink your transports, on December 7, 1941.

Hey, are you the same treespider in the Crown of Glory form.
I like that game, I play the English for the Frence just have to much going on!!!!!!!!


The English have a strong navy, how RA for the navy brats.

For I am an ARMY WIENER, that someone posted a couple of days ago, I know who you are, a LEATHER NECK.

God Bless the CORPS.

ORIGINAL: Jonny_B

Mr. treespider:



Of course the allies knew sometime was coming, just where this something was going to happen, was in conflict with the American navy and army intelligence.

I do not mind that the allied submarines are statically located around Malaya, it’s a computer game an small details like this are to be enjoyed, as the Dutch submarines sink your transports, on December 7, 1941.

Hey, are you the same treespider in the Crown of Glory form.
I like that game, I play the English for the Frence just have to much going on!!!!!!!!

Intel - I was refering to actual knowledge of the Tranport TF locations and not "general" intel that the allies were going to attack. I have no clue as to the whereabouts of the Dutch subs on Dec 7....I'm sure someone does though...


CoG - I may have posted once over there... I am a fan of Empires in Arms. Haven't picked up CoG yet though.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The lack of Japanese planes by 1943 is somewhat irrelevent, if you can use actual history as a guideline, because according to probably EVERY account, written by actual Japanese pilots/participants of that war (who survived), the Bushido code made the use of parachutes "unmanly", and so pilots who might have survived, chose to ride their pepperred crates to oblivion.
(WITP therefore should NEVER allow messages of Japanese pilots "surviving bail-outs" before sometime in 1944, when the High Command finally ordered the pilots to use 'chutes.)

You're pretty close on the use of parachutes but the choice to wear one or not rested with the individual. Some chose to wear them, others not. The ones that did were not looked down upon by their peers. The parachutes were actually commonly worn by army multi-engine bomber crews where weight wasn't a percieved issue. The AVG reported on many occasions Japanese crewmen bailing out of their burning aircraft, especially if they were over or near their own territory.

Among the Navy fighter pilots many chose not to wear the chutes because they felt they needed to keep their aircraft as light as possible for range and maneuverability. Its the same reason why many pilots had the radios (what few there were) removed from their fighters. Simply a matter of personal choice. IIRC Saburo Sakai was wearing a chute when he was wounded and considered bailing out but didn't because he determined that his aircraft was still flyable and he had no desire to become shark bait.

Still, many who wore the chutes chose to ride their aircraft in over enemy lines rather than be captured. That's where the Bushido code comes in- preventing the disgrace of capture.

CHez

We're on the same page, partner..Actually, I was referring to Navy Fighter pilots, specifically..Kinda weak on Army pilots. Only read one army pilot book and half of that book was how this pilot "survived" the Kamikaze group by the novel introduction of the atomic age............

ORIGINAL: Brady


Russians Flying them aganst comparatively Unmanuaverable German planes is not a good example, P-39's were horably unmanuaverable planes, espichaly compared to Japanese ones, their so differnet in this regard you cant even compare the two, at any altitude.

This is the Report of a P-39 aganst a Zero:

"Take of was accomplished in formation on signal to initiate a climb from sea leval to 5,000 ft indicated. The P-39D-1 was drawing 3000 rpm and 70 inches manifold preshure on take off when the engine started to detonate, so manifold preshure was reduced to 52 inches. The Aircobra left the ground first arrived at 5,000 ft indicated just as the Zero was passing 4,000 ft indicated. This amnifold preshure of 52 inches could be maintained to 4,500 feet indicated. At 5,000 ft from a cruising speed of 230 mph indicated the P-39 had a marked acceleration away from the Zero. At 10,000 ft indicated,from a crusing speed of 220 mph the Aircobra still accelerated away from the Zero rapidely. Climbing from 10,000 to 15,000 ft both aircraft maintainted equile rates up to 12,500 ft, above this altitude the Zero Walked away from the P-39.
Climb from 15,000 to 20,000 feet indicated, the Zero took immediate advantage and left the Airacobra. The climb from 20,000 feet to 25,000 feet was not compleated as the aircobra was running low on fuel.*
On a streight climb to altitude from take off under the same condations as before, the Aircobra maintained the advantage in climb untill reaching 14,800 ft indicated. Above this altitude the p-39 was left behind reaching 25,000 ft 5 minutes behind the Zero. At 25,000 ft from a crusing speed of 180 mph indicated, the Zero Excelerated away from the P-39 for three ship lengths this lead was maintainted for 1.5 minutes and it took the P-39 another 30 seconds to gain a lead of one ship length."

P-400's btw did not have any Oxygen equipment and could not operate over 10,00 ft anyway.

So now an Fw-190 is an unmanueverable piece of junk too? All the rest of the information you posted is interesting concerning rates of climb and speed at lower altitudes..., and show the P-39 to be superior to the Zero at those altitudes. You don't offer any evidence for your assertion that " P-39's were horably unmanuaverable planes" except for your opinion. You DO prove that they had superior climb and speed to the Zero below 10,000 feet...., and even you will admit that the P-39 was much more ruggedly constructed than the Zero. Nobody's maintaining that the P-39 was a great A/C in the normal circumstances of the Pacific war (barring an opportunity to intercept torpedo bombers---for which it WAS ideally suited). The War in Russia was generally fought at much lower (ground support) altitudes which gave the P-39 a chance to shine at what it COULD do. But just as a Zero at high altitudes wasn't t nearly the opponant that it was at medium or lower altitudes, the P-39 was much better at altitudes where it's lack of supercharging didn't let it down.

Well it's late and I am to tierd to go and transcribe something, so I will have to say that, ya the FW 190 was a freaking Pig, but it was a better machine than the P-39 by a long shot. I was a flight sim addic for a long time so when I use a term like Manuaver I am not refering to Spead, or exceleration or role rate, but how the plane handeled about all axis'es (sp?), you know Kick the runder tweak the stick and make it move, the P-39 would argue the point with you, the FW 190 would to but at lest it roled with a pashion, so you could change your direction in a hear beat, but it was no joy to fly it was Not manuaverable either. The situation with the Zero is that withen the scope of the game aganst the P-39 it gets to own it becuase of the Altitude isue, or should. Why would anyone send the Zero's down below 15K? Something that was interesting I thought was that of all the planes they pitted the Zero aganst the P-39 was the only one they dident even try and do manuaver tests with.

I realy dont think were debating much hear, I just hate that dam P-39, it is one of the most unpleasentist planes I ever flew Virtualy, and everything I read on the subject realy seamed to reflect this as well.

A big Pitty in most stock games is that the P-39 will see very little action because they will be replaced by the P-38 almost imeadatly, Historicaly the P-39's were very important numbers wise in the Pacific through mid 43.

ORIGINAL: Brady
I realy dont think were debating much hear, I just hate that dam P-39, it is one of the most unpleasentist planes I ever flew Virtualy, and everything I read on the subject realy seamed to reflect this as well.

A big Pitty in most stock games is that the P-39 will see very little action because they will be replaced by the P-38 almost imeadatly, Historicaly the P-39's were very important numbers wise in the Pacific through mid 43.

Actually in my stock game I'm still flying quite a number of P-39's in March of 1943. Mostly for CAP and ground support because they don't have the range for much else. I'm starting to get P-38's in enough numbers to escort bombing runs to Rabaul. I don't know where your opponants are getting all those P-38's, but I wish they'd give some to me.

"Why would anyone send the Zero's down below 15K?" Ask the few survivors of the American Torpedo Squadrons at Midway. Ask the crews of the Betty torpedo bombers the Zeros are supposed to escort. How about straffing missions? Fighters couldn't always choose the altitude they would have to fight at..., which is why the poor bastards flying P-39's were up there at 15,000 feet trying to intercept bombing raids and having Zero's smack them around. And why the poor schmucks flying Zeros were up at 25,000 trying to catch B-17s and getting smacked around.

ORIGINAL: Brady
I just hate that dam P-39, it is one of the most unpleasentist planes I ever flew Virtualy

This explains a lot...

Hi,
Miss Jennings 3rd grade class was dicussing the "Battle of Britian" and she arranged to have a WWII British pilot come talk to the class

Pilot: One day I was over the Channel whena fokker came out of the sun and got on my tail"

(the class laughs at the word "fokker")

Pilot: I tried everything to shake that fokker but he stayed right there on my tail"

(class laughs at word fokker)

Pilot: I looped I turned I dived and still the fokker was on my tail"

(class is on floor now at word fokker)

Miss Jennings: All right kids, Fokker is the name of a company that made airplanes"

Pilot:"Thats true Miss but this fokker was flying a Messerschmitt"

so I will have to say that, ya the FW 190 was a freaking Pig,

Wow....I ain't never heard that before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![&:]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi,
Miss Jennings 3rd grade class was dicussing the "Battle of Britian" and she arranged to have a WWII British pilot come talk to the class

Pilot: One day I was over the Channel whena fokker came out of the sun and got on my tail"

(the class laughs at the word "fokker")

Pilot: I tried everything to shake that fokker but he stayed right there on my tail"

(class laughs at word fokker)

Pilot: I looped I turned I dived and still the fokker was on my tail"

(class is on floor now at word fokker)

Miss Jennings: All right kids, Fokker is the name of a company that made airplanes"

Pilot:"Thats true Miss but this fokker was flying a Messerschmitt"

very funny
[:D]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

so I will have to say that, ya the FW 190 was a freaking Pig,

Wow....I ain't never heard that before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![&:]

It's from "The Gospel according to Brady". I suspect he was smoking something besides tobacco when he wrote it.

Sorry to have come in to this so late, but I dont browse the forums much on weekends. On the weekends I am playing my favorite game(s)!

I wish to address some of the points Brady made in his original post:

Dutch Engineers: If you feel that the "at start" engineers are too powerful, the you can edit the scenario to reduce the number of vehicles they have, which reduces thier ability to build or repair bases in the early months. Couple this with a low Dutch replacement rate, and it could be quite some time before those units become uber. Scenario driven, not game engine driven, so this is not insurmountable.

Supply. First off, let me say that the game should be about keeping your forces supplied were they need it most. A unit low on supplies should be suffering an impact on it's ability to fight effectively. Is this modeled correctly in game? In game, IMO, there is too much supply available to both sides, and therefore the players do not feel the same pressures that the actual theatre commanders felt.

However, if players were to sit around feeling restricted by the game engine, to a single campaign a year, then the game would not be percieved as "fun". Tough balance to strike...

S1) Japanese vs. American consumption. I believe that you are mistaking the ability of cut off, isolated Japanese garrisons to survive on meagre rations as an indicator of what they required to be fully 100% combat effective. There is a big difference here. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen of all sides made do with what they had, when they had it, when they had to. The fact that the Americans were able to produce and ship more to their fighting men just meant that they had to "make do" with starvation level supplies less often.

If I recall correctly, the dark early days of the US offensive on Guadalcanal saw the US Marines having to scrounge around on captured Japanese rations. In other words, using the same food that the Japanese had at the moment of invasion. Yet those Marines remained effective enough to repel Japanese Banzai charges.

The stories of the privation that the defenders of Bataan, Port Moresby, Singapore, and so on, suffered under, all indicate that the Allies can "make do" on low levels of supply (at reduced effectiveness) as much as anyone else. At least, to me.

their Tanks used less fuel, had lighter ammo

I actually chuckled at that line. Of course they did! Those were dinky tanks! It had a smaller horsepower engine, and used dinky (37mm or less) guns!

But anyway, supply points are supply points. I do not wish to track every roll of toilet paper and copy of Stars and Stripes. That is too much micromanagment, IMO, for a game of this scope.

S2) Supply consumption for Base building: You make two points here, actually, under a single heading...

S2a) Rate of expansion: Allied versus Japanese. The Americans were able to build more, and faster, because in part, of the greater availability of engineering vehicles, compared to the Japanese units, in addition to the lavish supply the Americans were able to dump into a new building project (that has priority).

The Japanese should be slower in repairing or building bases than the Allies because the Japanese building techniques were forced to be more manpower intensive due to less available vehicles. The Japanese made do with less supply because they were forced to, not because they wanted to...

S2b) Af/Base size requirements: Japanese needing smaller base sizes is already reflected in the game engine. 2-engine aircraft can operate more effectively from smaller airfields than 4-engine aircraft, right?

Or are you saying that Allied 2-engined planes needed a bigger runway and more workshops? If you are say this, then are you sure you are saying it for technical, verifiable reasons, or not because the Japanese were forced to operate from damaged, outlying airfields more often that they liked to, and you are percieving that as the baseline?

S3) Replacements: Again, this seems to be a supply issue for you. You are confusing the absolute minimums that Japan was forced to use (historically, in cut off areas), and was able to scrape by with, as opposed to the most ideal levels that they needed. In my opinion.

S4) Early war (Allied) supply availability: You make some interesting arguments here, and in me you have a sympathetic ear. This, however, again, is a scenario editing issue. Edit away! You can change the levels of the "at start" supply at select bases, as well as the amounts of supply "appearing" in the Rear/Home areas.

The only concern I have is that if you adjust the levels too low, then the Allies cannot mount a defense at all...

4E Bombers: You raise two issues: availability, and effectiveness.

Availability: Scenario driven values. Edit away! Not a problem, then, to me. Adjust to what you feel would give an appropriate force level. This should apply to all aircraft, however. Not just the ones that annoy you...

Effectiveness: This, unfortunately, is a game engine change.

If you feel that high altitude, level anti-ship bombing is too effective, I can agree with that.

If you feel that the Allied 4-engine plane is (a-historically) too rugged, I cannot agree. Because rugged it was. (Aircraft ruggedness is a database editable value, though.)

If you feel that the players fly those aircraft too low (in order to get hits) in the face of CAP, then I can see your point, because that didn't happen that often. I propose that low level 4-engine bombers should abort a tad more, in the face of CAP, as a remedy. If they fly low level versus ships that are without CAP, you deserve what you get...

If you nerf the plane too much, you will remove it's value to the early war Allied player. The Japanese were (historically speaking) respectfull of the (perceived) danger of the plane, and without fearing it, Japanese players will (a-historically) ignore them.

P38 availability: Edit away!

Base supply attrition: This cuts both ways, as I see it. If Japan can bomb Singapore/Hong Kong/Manila/Seorobaya, and starve out the Allied forces, why shouldn't the Allies be able to do it when the tables are turned?

The key was to gain air control over the target objective. Once that was done, generally and historically speaking, it was only a matter of time before the defenders were starved out. So, don't lose air control!

Zero bonus, and the AVG: I don't like the Zero bonus much. It was intended, as far as I know, to simulate the lack of knowledge, by the Allies, of the manueverability of the aircraft, and quality of the pilots flying it. But some people in the west knew about it (and spoke out about it).

It seems to me that the early war Japanese air to air victories were due more to pilot experience, coordinated and meticulus planning (and extreme disjointed command and control on the Allied side), and concentration of force. (This coordination and concentration of force can already be done in-game by the player. The Allied disjointedness is a bit more tricky to simulate.) It was not solely because of a more manueverable machine, and the attempt to dogfight it.

If the dominance of the Zero was due solely to lack of experience (in the proper technique to fight a more maneuverable, faster climbing, faster diving, etc., whatever the enemy's strengths are..) this should be reflected in the experience levels of the units involved, and the effect of unit experience on air to air combat. Not due to some hard coded "bonus".

The bonus smacks of some kind of "band aid" gamey thing, to me.

PT boats: You have my partial agreement here. These boats should be treated like any other ship. They should have to be convoyed to the war zone, not crated (as supply points) and unpacked wherever desired.

However, I do not understand your opinion that they are too effective at interdicting supply. They were very effective versus barges. Against destroyers, not so much. Maybe your experiences in game are not the same as mine. My PT boats tend to get shot up a lot more than they "score"...

Torps: I understand that "all torp attacks, all the time" is too a-historical. Tracking torps as a seperate, shippable item? I dunno. Depends on the production levels set. Most players will assure that their favorite air bases are well stocked anyways...

Maybe base size, supply level, and presence of some kind of Naval or Air HQ unit should be required?

Night: The Allies, historically, developed night fighter CV based squadrons by the start of '44. Is this modeled? I don't think that there is a night CAP capability in game...

You ask for increased chances of successful night attacks, but don't give the Allies any night CAP squadrons? Hmmm... Lemme think.

a chance that japanese might do as they did historicaly, put some pause int he allies in 43

Please state the historical campaigns, where the ability of Japanese night bombers drove the US fleet away for more than a couple hours...

Naval Bombardments- Sometimes they hurt mostly they dont, imo they should shut down an airfield, bugger a port and put the hurt on any ship...

Even the Tokyo Express, in it's better days, did not shut down Henderson Field for more than a few hours. With bulldozers, the Marines were able to push off the burning planes and fill the craters tout d' suite...

I have seen other players make comments that they thought that bombardments were too effective, in game, compared to the historical record.

Basically, in the end, when I see a post that says that this game is too heavilly slanted pro-Allied, and I see plenty of AAR's where the Japanese do much better than historically (like conquering India, China, Russia), then all I can do is scratch my head in wonderment.