Matrix Games Forums

Playing a game where we have home rule -max 4 CVs per hex(or 6 CVe) and a 40% CAP rule

Its mid 42, and we have had 3 CV engagements now -so much better than the allies hiding I can tell you

1st one -2 allied CV vs 2CVL, 1cve
Both allied CV scratched, all 3 jap sunk

2nd battle -Shok and Zuik vs 3 allied CV
Zuik sunk, shok hit, hornet sunk -other allied CVs hit

3rd battle -CVL ryujo and CV Junyo, Hiyo vs the Illustrious
Illustrious sunk -but her strike got through but missed

All I can say -if you want something that feels historically right -and gives a great game -this is really working for us.

LightFtr and I limit the number of 4e bombers to 48 per base (either 1x 48 group, or 3x 15 sqdns).

While it's "problematic" for 4e bombers to show up over his bases, you don't get the Dresden-sized raids that you see otherwise. 4e bombers are stoppable, altho not without some cost, in this arrangement.

-F-

Well I voluntarily limit myself to one 4E bomber group per raid these days. But I belive that some have 64 planes in so thats the limit I use. If a group only has 48 I'll add a squadron with 16 if I need to [:)]

I also base more than one group per base. It's just only one will attack each target or use the same mission type.

I don’t use the “only 2e bombers to 2e bombers, and 4e bombers to 4e bombers” house rule. That actually has you come up short of stock by a 64-plane group (there’s a 64-plane group of B-18s that naturally upgrades to B-17s, that would be excluded).

We use “16-plane sqdns and 48-plane groups upgrade to 4e bombers” (excluding RAAF and RNZAF, since they can’t go to 4e bombers anyway). While the mix is separate from stock (stock includes some 64 plane groups, and some 48 plane groups), the aggregate number of 4e bombers remains the same as stock. It’s also easier for me remember. But that’s why it works out for me to simply have 1 group or 3 squadrons at a base. Frankly that –makes- you spread out the 4e bombers. Because:

a. Putting 48x 4e bombers at an AF(4) is asking for trouble. They don’t fly well from AF(4) to begin with (lots of ops losses), and you’ll never get that many in the air to begin with. I will –rarely- post a single 16-plane squadron at an AF(4), but that’s realistically all they can support.

b. I don’t like using AF(5) for 4e bombers either. I will station an entire group there, but even then, I only ever see about half the group launch. Again, ops losses, and I hate those.

c. AF(6) is where I base my 4e bombers, almost exclusively. I obviously use the lesser AFs occasionally, but it’s not that frequent.

d. If you’re wondering, using 16 and 48 plane units into 4e bombers yields 6x 48-plane groups, and 6x 16-plane squadrons. I limit to 2x 48-plane groups of LB-30s (since the replacement rates are enormously high). In August ’42 (counting reinforcements), I field
2x 48-plane groups of LB-30s in Southeast Asia
4x 48-plane groups of B-24Ds
6x 16-plane squadrons (equivalent of 2x 48-plane groups) of B-17Es. I usually keep these in groups of 3 squadrons.
And that pretty much covers it until about mid-43. A total of 8x 48-plane groups of 4e bombers.

e. Frankly, there aren’t that many AF(6) available, so it really tends to spread them out (again, that my own practice, if you want to fly lots of 4e bombers from an AF(4), that’s asking for your own troubles if you ask me).

But I understand that many choose to go 2e -> 2e, and 4e -> 4e, and that’s all good.

-F-

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Playing a game where we have home rule -max 4 CVs per hex(or 6 CVe) and a 40% CAP rule

Its mid 42, and we have had 3 CV engagements now -so much better than the allies hiding I can tell you

1st one -2 allied CV vs 2CVL, 1cve
Both allied CV scratched, all 3 jap sunk

2nd battle -Shok and Zuik vs 3 allied CV
Zuik sunk, shok hit, hornet sunk -other allied CVs hit

3rd battle -CVL ryujo and CV Junyo, Hiyo vs the Illustrious
Illustrious sunk -but her strike got through but missed

All I can say -if you want something that feels historically right -and gives a great game -this is really working for us.

Sounds reasonable. And FUN. What abput CVLs? 2 CVLs equal 1 CV?

We use “16-plane sqdns and 48-plane groups upgrade to 4e bombers” (excluding RAAF and RNZAF, since they can’t go to 4e bombers anyway).

I dunno, but what would you call Privateers in Australian and Kiwi service then? I have scads of the things running about. Is there something in PDU that prevents this? I take it that's what your using.

Now, in late '43, if you think that your fields are crowded now, just wait for then....and B-sans are just around the corner......

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I don’t use the “only 2e bombers to 2e bombers, and 4e bombers to 4e bombers” house rule. That actually has you come up short of stock by a 64-plane group (there’s a 64-plane group of B-18s that naturally upgrades to B-17s, that would be excluded).

We use “16-plane sqdns and 48-plane groups upgrade to 4e bombers” (excluding RAAF and RNZAF, since they can’t go to 4e bombers anyway). While the mix is separate from stock (stock includes some 64 plane groups, and some 48 plane groups), the aggregate number of 4e bombers remains the same as stock. It’s also easier for me remember. But that’s why it works out for me to simply have 1 group or 3 squadrons at a base. Frankly that –makes- you spread out the 4e bombers.

[snip]

But I understand that many choose to go 2e -> 2e, and 4e -> 4e, and that’s all good.

-F-

Well my games with LightFtr are the most advanced ones I am playing with PDUs on. I am not sure if we are playing with any house rules but neither of us appears to be doing anything too gamey. At least he isn't [:D] He may be cursing my every move for being a gamey exploit [;)]

I play with a set of personnal restrictions on my actions in some areas of WitP and 4E are certainly an area which I have done this as I think they have the potential to seriously harm the games enjoyment for both sides. I am not sure whether they are a game killer if the allied player uses a massed (100s) 4E death star. But I am fairly sure a game dominated by the use and defence against that in '42 is not the sort of game I wish to play.

So I no longer fly more than 64 4E on a mission in any of my games, although I did a long while ago. Being a 'stock' man (for no particular reason) I seem to have some none PDU 64 plane 4E groups so thought this was a workable limit, while 48 would not be. But maybe there is only the ex-Bolo group that is 64? When I have PDUs I don't upgrade any 2E to 4E level bombers (except the Bolo group and some of the Venturas that upgrade naturally to Privateers).

But I'll fly them from any base. Airfield size 4 is the minimum to get them to do anything much and even with big replacement numbers the pilots are key. Experience in the 50s and 60s won't hit much so once you have trained some up to the 70s and 80s (or received some) they are to valuable to waste with high ops losses. So I find self interest stops me flying them from every jungle clearing.

1275psi CV limit is very interesting. I don't like big CAPs in general and see them as a design problem in the game. The game works well until you start trying to 'maximize' and uber CAPs are a classic example of this (but not the only one). The lethality level shoots up so much that they can be real killers.

But CVs are so crucial in this game. They are the one place where I don't mind mass CAPs. The Japanese needs its KB in order to fend off the allies in early '42 when he is advancing. Never mind later. If KB is nerfed so much that it cannot even beat off a - fairly standard - 64 Maurauder or Mitchell naval attack then the Japanese are going to struggle to progress. Of course most of KB cannot be hurt by the 500lbers [;)], but any transports with them could be sunk.

Without some serious house rules or a firm understanding between both players on the nature of the game they want to play this is going a bit further than I'd like. It is a shame though as the Pacific War we all read about had many reasonably even CV v CV fights (in '42) yet in my experience WitP has very few. Good luck if you can make this happen. I hope the game goes well and you both enjoy it [:D]

Have you guys ever seen pictures of the B-29s of the 9th Very Heavy Bomb Group on Tinian or others on Saipan lined up preparing for takeoff on a raid?  These attacks on Japan numbered in the hundreds so why do you limit yourselves?  I've read my fathers AARs and after a while the Japanese, even if they were in the skies, didn't even try to down these planes.  The Allied 4E bombers were a weapon that the Japanese could never match or properly deal with.  Use it! 

As to limits on the # of CVs, CVLs or CVEs in a given hex why wouldn't historical #s be OK?  If you have a massive advantage and don't get to use it that's a shame.  Remember that nothing can be everywhere at once.  So if you're concentrated in 1 place with a large force others will be uncovered.  This tactic of force concentration can work against you if your opponent spots your forces and takes advantage of the situation. 

Everything can be a double edged sword.

Sounds like some interesting house rules.  Though I think the IJN player is at a significant disadvantage from this rule.  Due to the massive production and the future power of the 4E bombers talked about above, the IJN player needs to make as big an impact as quickly as possible before the prodction and air power of the allies starts to tip the tables in the Allies favor.  Once this happens the IJN player is living on borrowed time.  I think the CV house rule in combination with the 4E bomber house rule might be an interesting balance that might produce a more leveled playing field for a longer period of time. 

Tocaff.. its one thing to have 100s of B-29s bombing Tokyo.. its another to have them bombing every base from Mandalay on up.  Even with the B-29 available, the USAAF didnt send them over Okinawa or Iwo Jima in groups of 100s at a time..

some more details guys
KB stayed together until april 42-but only as a 4 CV group , but still conquered all historical areas
(and cvl counts as 1)
still did not prevent capture of bottom half of India - WHERE I VOLUNTEERLY SAID thats AS FAR AS I GO -when I could have taken far more.
so we are playing a game where winning is not the thing, the fight is

At the moment my opponent has been fantastic with our house rules, and I have not had any mega death bombing raids against me -Im sure if I asked him to limit it 1 4e group raids at a time he would -but at the moment we are still looking at airfield size equals numbers of air groups to limit the bomber effect -stuffing noumea full of bombers is fine -but what about fighters, recon ect?

I did not think KB was nerfed iether once 4 CV rule introduced, actually from memeory she never was more than 4 CV strong -shok and zuik were always elsewhere in this game.

probably the best thing is the allied player has a chance to hurt me in 42/early43 -but so do I in the rest.

At the moment Im into late43 against tabpub -and he could close rabual in one day with a raid -where it took months in real life -hopefully this will be what happens in this game.
Finally, we have no restrictions on LRCAP over a field -so twice now unescorted bombers have arrived over fields which with 40% CAP have put up a dozen fighters -only this time to meet 100.

Another aspect of making the game fun.

I think the secret to WITP is to find opponents who play honourably, get the rules decided 1st, and be flexible -and playing to purely win is a losing strategm -over 3 years for a game just to have your arse kicked for 2 years is not going to see many games finished.

Ive been very lucky -I have 3 great opponents

Tabpub
Wobbly
and ryan
(for future refence for you guys)

ORIGINAL: Vetamur

Tocaff.. its one thing to have 100s of B-29s bombing Tokyo.. its another to have them bombing every base from Mandalay on up. Even with the B-29 available, the USAAF didnt send them over Okinawa or Iwo Jima in groups of 100s at a time..

Just because they didnt, doesnt mean they couldnt have. B-17s carpet bombed German troop positions on at least 2 occasions that I am aware of to great effect. If there had been a need to bomb the airfields at Okinawa or Iwo Jima with B-29s, you can bet they would have.

That is one purpose of the game, is it not? To allow the player to explore things that didnt happen to see what effect it would have had. I mean if all you are going to do is replay history ie in May '42 the Japs have to send 2 CVs (et al) escorting a landing force to Moresby and the allies have to have 2 CVs there to meet them, on Aug 7th the allies HAVE to invade Guadelcanal, ect. just pull a book off the shelf and read it.

Is there a way to stop the 4E menace? Stop it? Probably not. Can you put a dent in it? Sure. Can you stop 16 Essex carriers late in the war? Probably not. Did they operate all their carriers in 1 given area or did they spead them all over the pacific? In the early war period, yes, they spead them out. They got a bloody nose and learned from their mistake. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot proved the best tactic was to concentrate your CV forces and keep them close together and ever after thats what they did. What you are saying is that there needs to be rules to make the player forget what he knows about history, he can only go on the tactics they used in 1940 and learn on their own from there. Isnt going to happen. People that play this game are far too educated for that.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

That is one purpose of the game, is it not? To allow the player to explore things that didnt happen to see what effect it would have had. I mean if all you are going to do is replay history ie in May '42 the Japs have to send 2 CVs (et al) escorting a landing force to Moresby and the allies have to have 2 CVs there to meet them, on Aug 7th the allies HAVE to invade Guadelcanal, ect. just pull a book off the shelf and read it.

I don't suppose the two sides of this very old argument will ever agree [:)] I don't think those looking for a more historic type game want to simply replay hstory. What they are looking for are perhaps more of the challenges their historic counterparts faced.

Why didn't the Japanese close down the Guadalcanal campaign by parking 150 Betties and 150 Zeros on rabaul like you could in WitP? Maybe it was not quite so easy to do as in WitP? Or maybe not quite so effective as that strategy in WitP? Why did the allies once established on Guadalcanal not knock Rabaul out with a couple of 200 4E bomber raids from there? Or even before they landed from PM? Perhaps rather than them not thinking of it it just wasn't that easy or effective?

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Is there a way to stop the 4E menace? Stop it? Probably not. Can you put a dent in it? Sure. Can you stop 16 Essex carriers late in the war? Probably not. Did they operate all their carriers in 1 given area or did they spead them all over the pacific? In the early war period, yes, they spead them out. They got a bloody nose and learned from their mistake. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot proved the best tactic was to concentrate your CV forces and keep them close together and ever after thats what they did. What you are saying is that there needs to be rules to make the player forget what he knows about history, he can only go on the tactics they used in 1940 and learn on their own from there. Isnt going to happen. People that play this game are far too educated for that.

I am certainly not going to disagree that the massing of force is not both a good tactic/strategy and a very effective one. Just about any half way decent military leader tries to do this.

My problem is that in WitP this is too easy to do. And the costs are too cheap. And if anything the effects, which you would expect to be big, are exaggerated. At least with the air model.

I fear that when the allies have sunk a good proportion of the Japanese CVs and have many Essex class CVs themselves the game probably does become a bit of a boring procession. I suspect that the Allies can probably island hop too quickly to give the Japanese much hope of holding out for long. But I may be pleasently surprised. Not too surprised though as in my most advanced games I'm the allies [X(] But the interesting part of the war is the first 12-24 months as the initiative is held by one side then the other.

So I am less concerned with mass Essexs in late '44 than mass 4Es in '42 or any of the other unhistoric strategies that many of us either house rule or resist from using. Besides that did happen, while mass carpet bombing raids by 4Es were from 44 onwards and even then used surprisingly little if they were as effective as you suggest. Personally I attribute the St Lo breakout to the US massing a strong enough thrust and the Germans finally running out of highly defendable bockage countryside and defenders in general rather than the carpet bombing.

The mass 4E bombing prior to troops attacking was found to create a problem that nobody seemed to think of.  Manuever on a battlefield strewn with bomb craters is difficult at best and can throw the manuever formations into chaos.  Imagine trying to recreate this in WITP by using a disruption factor being added to the attacking troops.  Counter productive isn't it?  

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum


I don't suppose the two sides of this very old argument will ever agree [:)] I don't think those looking for a more historic type game want to simply replay hstory. What they are looking for are perhaps more of the challenges their historic counterparts faced.

Granted, never will happen. But thats what the forums are for. Intelligent debate.

Why didn't the Japanese close down the Guadalcanal campaign by parking 150 Betties and 150 Zeros on rabaul like you could in WitP? Maybe it was not quite so easy to do as in WitP? Or maybe not quite so effective as that strategy in WitP?

Well the Japanese in real life didnt have the luxury of knowing what the allies were capible of. They also didnt know the allied order of battle, ect. The WitP player (both sides) has a much better grasp of what tactics to use, what their forces are able to do and more importantly what their opponents are capible of.

Let us not forget that in the real war there were political issues to be dealt with as well as military ones. In addition to the in-fighting between the various branches of the armed forces (of every nation depected) there was also the individual nationialistic politics. India was in the midst of a revolt, China was divided not only between nationalist and communist, but countless warlord states as well. Australia and New Zealand was wanting their troops committed to the North African campaign brought home to defend, which gave Churchill fits. None of this, and much much more, is portrayed in the game, nor can it be.

Why did the allies once established on Guadalcanal not knock Rabaul out with a couple of 200 4E bomber raids from there? Or even before they landed from PM? Perhaps rather than them not thinking of it it just wasn't that easy or effective?

That one is easy to answer: I stated that you probably couldnt stop the 4E bombers, but you could put a dent in them. Well, this is a case in point. Park 300 B-17s on Guadalcanal and then have 4 Jap BBs bombard it. Japs were constantly shelling the airfield there. Now would you park valuable, hard to replace aircraft on a front line base that is getting shelled nightly, or would you put Marine air units there (since no one cared about the Marines, except the Marines)? I know what I would do. Naval bombardment is one way to put a dent in the 4E bombers.

I am certainly not going to disagree that the massing of force is not both a good tactic/strategy and a very effective one. Just about any half way decent military leader tries to do this.

My problem is that in WitP this is too easy to do. And the costs are too cheap. And if anything the effects, which you would expect to be big, are exaggerated. At least with the air model.

I fear that when the allies have sunk a good proportion of the Japanese CVs and have many Essex class CVs themselves the game probably does become a bit of a boring procession. I suspect that the Allies can probably island hop too quickly to give the Japanese much hope of holding out for long. But I may be pleasently surprised. Not too surprised though as in my most advanced games I'm the allies [X(] But the interesting part of the war is the first 12-24 months as the initiative is held by one side then the other.

So I am less concerned with mass Essexs in late '44 than mass 4Es in '42 or any of the other unhistoric strategies that many of us either house rule or resist from using. Besides that did happen, while mass carpet bombing raids by 4Es were from 44 onwards and even then used surprisingly little if they were as effective as you suggest. Personally I attribute the St Lo breakout to the US massing a strong enough thrust and the Germans finally running out of highly defendable bockage countryside and defenders in general rather than the carpet bombing.

Cant say I disagree with most of this. As for "massed bombers" in '42, I have a hard time lisening to anyone whine on this. Where exactly are you going to "mass" them and what are you going to hit? Lets examine the options:

1) China. Yes you could, but you would run out of supplies fairly quickly I think, I have never tried it, so I dont know for sure.

2) India / Burma. depends on style of play of course, but as the Japs I prefer to not get into a war of attrition in this area. Its a battle the Japs will lose in the long run, so that means basically everything from Tavoy north gets pasted early and then after that what? Going to accomplish this with or without "massed" bombers.

3) Timor / Kendari / Ambonia. Kendari and Ambonia are well out of escort range, so maybe a good area to train your interceptor squadrons, but as #2 above, eventually these will all be flattened. Japs can always drop in and bombard the allied bomber base also if they get too carried away.

4) Rabul via Moresby (historical). Im going to break this into 2 sub-parts:
4a) Historical -- Japs could hit Morseby with escorted bombers and Rabul was supported by many other airfields in the area, meaning not all thier planes had to base at Rabul. The allies on the other had, dont have that luxury. Moresby is all they have (initially). Other bases in the solomons is good, but not really good for basing "massed" bombers because of the shore bombardment thing. So this means you would be risking your bomber "mass" at a base that you would also have to have its CAP based at, which reduces the numbers of bombers you could "mass" there.
4b) My gambit -- as the Jap player I place a very high priority to taking this menace for no other reason to deny it to the allies. I am not alone in this theroy.

Thats it. That is your choices for "massed bombers" in '42. Not exactly the doom and gloom that people make it out to be. Now one thing I will say is I do NOT agree with the game in the least on 4E bombers being in the "naval attack" role. My personal belief is that they should be allowed to "naval search" (which will occasionally attack a target) but not "naval attack". And I think this is really what people are upset about more than anything.

The mass 4E bombing prior to troops attacking was found to create a problem that nobody seemed to think of. Manuever on a battlefield strewn with bomb craters is difficult at best and can throw the manuever formations into chaos. Imagine trying to recreate this in WITP by using a disruption factor being added to the attacking troops. Counter productive isn't it?

Very true. And on the mobile battlfieds of Europe, that was a problem. In the jungle, there neither side is "blitzing" anything, I dont think it would be much of a problem. In fact, it is entirely possible it would be benefital. Clearing away the concelement hiding the Jap positions, and creating cover for advancing forces.