Matrix Games Forums

My first campaign (full war scenario, stock, against AI, 9/42). I'm currently in the process of gutting the IJN, especially its shipping, but I'm begining to think they don't really care, after all who needs a navy when you've got Betty's. My first carrier raid against Rabual, very early on, resulted in one carrier sunk and two heavily damaged when the snuk a group of Betty's onto the airfield at night. At that point I didn't realize the full capabilities of those damn things; it took me days of steaming to get out of their absurd range and even with Wildcats in the air they always seem to get through. After that unfortunate episode I stuck with reducing Rabual with land based heavies, which worked great, but now I am looking to move on to Truk. My first plan was to set up an air base on the Admiralty Islands and repeat my bombardment tactics. This worked well for a couple days but then they moved in about 250 Betty's along with 300 Zero's and I was forced to withdraw my planes. Now I am wondering how to go about cracking Truk. I'm frankly afraid to go anywhere near it with any valuable ships. Do I simply have to wait for long range fighters? Would a heavily protected carrier group stand any chance?

Eventually, UberCAP could do a number on them - i.e. multiple different carrier groups in 1 hex - when you get about 900 fighters in the hex, essentially nothing can get through.

This is considered gamey by some in PBEM - but you are playing the AI...

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Eventually, UberCAP could do a number on them - i.e. multiple different carrier groups in 1 hex - when you get about 900 fighters in the hex, essentially nothing can get through.

This is considered gamey by some in PBEM - but you are playing the AI...

Its gamey against AI also[:D]

If you have Rabaul, load up with your flying forts and libbys, they fly unescorted and can lay waste to Truk's airbase.
After that airbase is quieted, send in your bombardment TF's to pummel Truk to the stone age.
gamey perhaps, but you have to be gamey against a gamey AI.[;)]

In real life the Betty was a serious threat and this was one of the principle reasons for the Allies island hoping strategies...progress under an umbrella of air superiority.  Eventually Japan had to switch to night time air attacks because even with escort, Betty losses were becoming significant.  Even at night the Bettys proved to be something of a threat.  During the Solomons the US Navy often had to witdraw at night to a safe distance.  It's very fortunate for the Allies that the Betty was a fragile as it was.  Even escorted they were relatively easy to down.

In the game, in my opinion, the range of the Betty to patrol the sea is way over represented, not to  mention Japan did not have an unlimited supply of torpedos at every air field.  There seems to be a capability in the game to redeploy units over vast distances that is unhistoric.

To answer your question, I generally would not conduct a CV raid on a major Japanese airfield prior to the deployment of Hellcats.  You're just putting your CVs in too much danger, probably needlessly.  The one effective counter to the Betty is the B-17.  A campaign to reduce the AF at Truk with massed high level bombing might weaken the airfield enough to  allow in your carriers...maybe.  Generally the allied player needs to advance base by base under a CAP of Corsairs, P-40s, P-38s and P-47s...that's about 4 hexes at a time.

Obviously you have tried this tactic...my suggestion would be open another base with striking range of Truk and hit it not with one hammer, but two.

While the Betty was indeed a good plane, I think WitP has greatly overrated them.  Sure, they're fast and long-ranged, but when conducting torpedo runs they're very vulnerable, both to CAP and AA.
Their reputation of flying Zippos seems completely lost to my (little) experience in the game - while using wildcats in the Guadalcanal scen, I expected to kill them more often than simply damage them, and it didn't appear to be the case.  After all, the same air corps that sunk the PoW attacked the Lady Lex' two months later, and the CAP and AA downed 17 of the 18 planes, with no torpedo hit.  In the game, the few times I've had such a situation (between 10 and 20 Betty, on to three CVs in the same hex, and never less than 50% CAP), I've got several hits, while most of the planes got away, even when they were not escorted.
In 1943, USS Chicago was sunk by them too, but there was no CAP (at dusk).  I don't know of any other major ship (CA-size, at least) sunk by Betty, yet in the few games I've played, those damn' aircrafts proved to be the most reliable japanes assets.
So, I believe they do too much damage and endure too much punishment.
 
Regarding their payload, I regret that it doesn't follow the same scheme as later-war US heavy bombs : a test should be required (skill of pilots, supply at base, etc).[:(]

Its gamey against AI also

 
I never got any complaints [:D]

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

While the Betty was indeed a good plane, I think WitP has greatly overrated them.  Sure, they're fast and long-ranged, but when conducting torpedo runs they're very vulnerable, both to CAP and AA.
Their reputation of flying Zippos seems completely lost to my (little) experience in the game - while using wildcats in the Guadalcanal scen, I expected to kill them more often than simply damage them, and it didn't appear to be the case.  After all, the same air corps that sunk the PoW attacked the Lady Lex' two months later, and the CAP and AA downed 17 of the 18 planes, with no torpedo hit.  In the game, the few times I've had such a situation (between 10 and 20 Betty, on to three CVs in the same hex, and never less than 50% CAP), I've got several hits, while most of the planes got away, even when they were not escorted.
In 1943, USS Chicago was sunk by them too, but there was no CAP (at dusk).  I don't know of any other major ship (CA-size, at least) sunk by Betty, yet in the few games I've played, those damn' aircrafts proved to be the most reliable japanes assets.
So, I believe they do too much damage and endure too much punishment.

Regarding their payload, I regret that it doesn't follow the same scheme as later-war US heavy bombs : a test should be required (skill of pilots, supply at base, etc).[:(]

Well the amount of damage US 4E bombers can do to an airfield is a tad bit overrepresented also. The Bettys that attacked Lexington were carrying bombs not torpedoes due to the extreme range. The Forze Z thing is an anomaly. I have tried simulating this battle with several gaming systems (including the original WiTP board game) and have found it nearly impossible to recreate. I think the Japanese either got incredibly lucky that day or "Tom Thumb" did a poor job of disposing his ships in an effective manner. The fact that one of the two capital ships (which one eludes me at the moment) suffered a rudder casualty which was just dumb luck probably had a greater effect on the battle than anything.

IIRC, it's the Repulse.  The PoW got several torpedoes in the first wave, but one of them was the catastrophic hit on it's propellers (or the shaft) while they were turning at full power - this alone cut all power for (among other things) proper damage control.  The Repulse managed to dodge all shots until the last wave, when the first torpedo hit jammed its rudder.  So, both were hit by unfortunately devastating torpedoes.
Bombs were indeed the most frequent payload AFAIK.
BTW, most of the attacking planes were carrying bombs - not torpedoes.  In WitP, if you're in standard range, they'll all carry torpedoes.
 
 
Yes, the amount of damage done to airfields by 4e bombers is too high, especially at 36600ft - especially when 200 such bombers are on the strike.  But regarding 4e, I'd rather rant at their accuracy at targetting ships, even at high altitude too.[:(]
And with Bettys and Nells having a greater range than B-17s and B-24s, using those bombers on their airfields is not always effective either - in the Guadalcanal scen, I had to use nearly all of them from PM and later Lae to simply keep Rabaul's AF closed - and the Betty/Nells still came from Truk.

The Betty is the most overrated aircraft in the game. No other aircraft can achieve such unrealistic results during all the years of war like the Betty does. This is not due to wrong or overrated stats in the game, this is due to the fact that every Betty on the map at a level 4 airfield carries a torp on nav attacks.

This is changed with AE! [&o] Saying that as a JFB...

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well the amount of damage US 4E bombers can do to an airfield is a tad bit overrepresented also.

Perhaps, but it's not the modeling of the bomber in WitP as much as it is the numbers that tend to fly. What's unrealistic in my mind is the ability for the Allied player to mount 100,200, or more plane raids day after day, from very early in the war. The accuracy and effect seems to me to be right on.

AE should help correct this, with its more detailed scale and improved OOB.

What I would like to know is how AE will put some reality back into the Betty.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Well the amount of damage US 4E bombers can do to an airfield is a tad bit overrepresented also.

Perhaps, but it's not the modeling of the bomber in WitP as much as it is the numbers that tend to fly. What's unrealistic in my mind is the ability for the Allied player to mount 100,200, or more plane raids day after day, from very early in the war. The accuracy and effect seems to me to be right on.

AE should help correct this, with its more detailed scale and improved OOB.

What I would like to know is how AE will put some reality back into the Betty.

I think this is the real take home point here. Its the logistics that really need help. For example a B-24 needs at least 15 tons of supplies to fly a moderate range mission (10 tons of fuel and 5 tons of bombs - not counting ammom for MG). SO 100 of these babies need 1500 tons to run one mission. If a supply point is roughly equaly to a ton of supplies than our raid of 100 B-24's needs 1500 SP per mission. Just runing 3 missions aweek would require 4500 SP! Now run that number up to 200 or 300 and the supply consumption goes through the roof. For example 300 4E bombers based at PM bombing Rabaul three times a week would go through 13500 SP a week. That does not count spare parts, ammo, oil, hydralic fluid, food and clothing fro 3900 aircrew plus the ground crew, etc, etc etc. Historically 8th Air Force crews ran less than one mission a week. True there were times of increased tempo but that was the exception not the norm. I would assume the same could be said for Betty's as well.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The Betty is the most overrated aircraft in the game. No other aircraft can achieve such unrealistic results during all the years of war like the Betty does. This is not due to wrong or overrated stats in the game, this is due to the fact that every Betty on the map at a level 4 airfield carries a torp on nav attacks.

This is changed with AE! [&o] Saying that as a JFB...

Betty is not overrated,thats my opinion.
Only thing that is really overrated are 4E monsters,you can use those devils in gamey way and completely make game one-sided.

Oh yes,swordfish are overrated too in RL,how those craps can criple modern BB or sink Italian ships at Taranto. Overrated?
And,i dont think that those,hmmm aircrafts, need any level of AF[:D]
Probably they needed small field and some barn for torpedo storage.

Sorry, Hawker, but the Betty achieves far more in WITP than it ever did IRL. I ran a search some time ago and found that only about 35-50 US ships were sunk by aerial torpedo through the whole war, and yet in any WITP game you will find hundreds of ships sunk by the all-prevailing Betty and Nell bombers by the end of 1942.

I also agree with Ambassador's observation that they appear to be far more resilient in WITP than they were known to be IRL. If WITP truly reflected reality then Adm Yamamoto would have survived the interception over Bougainville...

Supposedly there were only a relative few Betty/Nell squadrons capable of torpedo attacks.

Torpedoes required special technical support (i.e. high PSI compressors, machine shops, etc)., and the Japanese had only a limited number of units that could do this, so only a limited number of squadrons had torpedoes.

The Japanese devoted a lot of resources to fighting units, very few to ancillary units (and usually the less promising people were assigned to these units). This also showed up in things like intel - iirc, the director of intel for the P.I. was a mid-grade officer that did work on it part time, and had some file cards stuck in a closet. The Allies had 100s-1000s of folks devoted to similar tasks.

Don't get me wrong, I love Bettys and Nells, but I hope AE does address the aerial torp problem that currently exists.  I personally think it's gamey to have a Betty KB of 3-400 planes moving around the map sinking everything in sight.

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The Betty is the most overrated aircraft in the game. No other aircraft can achieve such unrealistic results during all the years of war like the Betty does. This is not due to wrong or overrated stats in the game, this is due to the fact that every Betty on the map at a level 4 airfield carries a torp on nav attacks.

This is changed with AE! [&o] Saying that as a JFB...

Betty is not overrated,thats my opinion.
Only thing that is really overrated are 4E monsters,you can use those devils in gamey way and completely make game one-sided.

Oh yes,swordfish are overrated too in RL,how those craps can criple modern BB or sink Italian ships at Taranto. Overrated?
And,i dont think that those,hmmm aircrafts, need any level of AF[:D]
Probably they needed small field and some barn for torpedo storage.

How can you possibly make those statements with a straight face?

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Sorry, Hawker, but the Betty achieves far more in WITP than it ever did IRL. I ran a search some time ago and found that only about 35-50 US ships were sunk by aerial torpedo through the whole war, and yet in any WITP game you will find hundreds of ships sunk by the all-prevailing Betty and Nell bombers by the end of 1942.

I also agree with Ambassador's observation that they appear to be far more resilient in WITP than they were known to be IRL. If WITP truly reflected reality then Adm Yamamoto would have survived the interception over Bougainville...

The Betty was actually quite the good anti-shipping weapon, but often carried bombs as opposed to torpedoes. It was the scourge of skies when Dutch ships were trying to flee the DEI.

But yes, I agree, hugely over rated in the game. The ability to carry torps 17 hexes out on any given day and for multiple days in a row is bogus.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Don't get me wrong, I love Bettys and Nells, but I hope AE does address the aerial torp problem that currently exists. I personally think it's gamey to have a Betty KB of 3-400 planes moving around the map sinking everything in sight.

If they fix the Betty problem I think we would see a lot more naval battles, as the allies would almost certainly move their surface ships forward