Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what do I need to change in database for Betty/Nells to get them to at least somewhat useful level or is it now hard coded in AE that they need to be wiped out in every engagement (perhaps a bit too much "flaming cigars sindrome")?

ORIGINAL: goran007
Every Allied bomber had difficulty with any decent fighter flown by a decent pilot.
In war allies did bomb wherever they wanted because of air superiority and only basic tactics of Japan interceptors. That wouldn't be the case if Japan in 1944 had decent pilots and good organization and tactics (high enough air hq expirience), but that Japan could have in WITP AE

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

ORIGINAL: rattovolante

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

How do you get that "bombing accuracy" percentile? I've never seen it so far, at least, my Kanoya Ku K-1 does not have it!


FWIW my losses are way lower than yours (my Kanoya Ku K-1 lost 5 planes in 2 weeks, 3 of which were lost in a single raid where they sortied without fighter escort), but I don't seem to do anything different from you. What are the fatigue levels of your fighter escorts/sweeps? Before the escort/sweep mission, I mean.

ORIGINAL: Streptokok
noone seems to care how angry some stuff makes people ...

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

I wanted them to intradict shipping heading for singapore but not attack Singapore (ships always spotted in port but a 30+ fighter Cap). If you put a range past Singapore to get at shipping between Singapore and Java , they attack Singapore without fighter support or drop tank range, still not a good idea.

To stop the attacks on Singapore you set the range shorter than Singapore. This then means that shipping between Singapore and Java out of range.

I think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

Im sorry but Im not pissed at you m8 [:)] . Even tough I sound , hmmm, harsh? or even rude? Im not trying to attack anyone or get angry at anyone. And even if it does not seem like that I can take quite alot of "forum punching" before I get into flaming wars [:D]

Major point is i wish it was more balanced game, at least in the begining of the game.
Im just not seeing this being right and playable, allied CRAP 2E bombers escaping all sort of Jap fighters (Nates, Zeros, Oscars...) while Japs get torched all the time.
Even historicaly I dont think the situtation was like this. In above example theres 39 Jap fighters vs. 8 allied planes.
Seems like an overwhelming force for planes like Blens [&:]
And I could post whole bunch of this reports with the same outcome.

Its not just Blens and hudsons I can whine about all day [:D]
When I took Miri I have put 3 fighters squads there on CAP and yet there were 3x and rarely 5x B-17 bombing my ships in harbour for about 10-15 turns.
Betties trying to do that would leave my Betty pool at 0 after 3 turns.
3x B-17 surviving 20-30 fighters 10 times in a row, sinking 5 Tk's ? Wtf? Hello?
B-17 was what it was, great plane, could take alot of punishment. But 3 of those would never live trough 10 runs against 20-30 fighters, and certanly wouldnt sink 5 ships while doing so.
B-17 and Betty uncomparable? Yes, of course B-17 is better, definitly more survivable plane than "flying cigars".

But in AE things went a bit too far in allied favor too early in the game.