Matrix Games Forums

Matrix needs to make a design decision, maybe they already have.

Do they wish to have a game dominated by CV taskforces,
or a game dominated by LBA. At this time, UV is dominated
by LBA.

The USN CV Task Forces primary roles are to attrit the enemy
aircraft. Occasionally they tangle with enemy CV, but not often.
In fact you could strip the bombers off the CV and just load up with fighters. Some people do.

The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase.

I cant say if that is what was intended, but that is the effect.

When I read accounts of the Pacific War, I read about fast moving
CV striking enemy bases. I dont read about them skulking about
at Nomea.

I think it's a matter of time period. During UV, the US was more careful with CVs as there were fewer to risk. I'd agree with you about fast moving forces later in the war though. If WitP is dominated by LBA, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly - that one's a wait and see though.

For UV, I'm still pretty satisfied with the balance. The New Guinea campaign was dominated by LBA, which occurs here. I think the possible ahistorical "overuse" of LBA elsewhere (SOPAC) is a result of players having hindsight and therefore deviating from the results that occured historically. For instance, a player can strip units from backwater bases and be relatively certain that the IJN won't attack whereas the historical counterpart couldn't always be so sure, so more front-line units needed to be kept back. I don't think there's anyway to design around that though. Maybe some sort of requirements or guidelines that follow the strict historical application, but I don't think many gamers want their hands tied like that.

"The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase."

(more when I stop laughing)

OK I've had to reread that post a dozen times to make sure it is saying what I think it is saying.

UV has been out for over 14 months. I figured that out the first time I tried it. There have been hundreds of posts concerning Aircombat TF's set to react that run up into enemy LBA range.
(We all learned not to use react on if the TF was any where near where this could occur.

CV aircraft are poor airbase closers. Unless the airfield is size four or smaller.

It is well established before venturing into LBA range you first must hit the airfield with long range bombers and surface bombardment groups.

I find it very surprising that you find it remarkable that Japanese CV might be hurt if they are in range of escorted strikes from large well stocked airfields.

Did I understand the post correctly?

IMHO,

In the period coverd by UV, the dominating factor was LBA destroying transports.

CVs had little impact.

They even had trouble supporting troops on Guadacanal and never suported the troops fighting in New Guinea before Guadacanal or at the same time as Guadacanal.

Which is the time period covered by UV.

Originally posted by Chiteng
Matrix needs to make a design decision, maybe they already have.

Do they wish to have a game dominated by CV taskforces,
or a game dominated by LBA. At this time, UV is dominated
by LBA.

The USN CV Task Forces primary roles are to attrit the enemy
aircraft. Occasionally they tangle with enemy CV, but not often.
In fact you could strip the bombers off the CV and just load up with fighters. Some people do.

The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase.

I cant say if that is what was intended, but that is the effect.

When I read accounts of the Pacific War, I read about fast moving
CV striking enemy bases. I dont read about them skulking about
at Nomea.

As others have stated, very rarely did CVs stray too close strong LBA bases. Early war months CVs of both sides routinely bombed land bases and airfields but these were recently captured and underdeveloped (like USN carrier raids prior to Coral Sea) and IJN attacks during their expansion phase. After this, rarely did CVs close LBA unless they were capable of achieving air superiority. Even so, many times CVs were hit. Don't even want to mention kamikazes...

LBA should be feared. Thats one reason why I never use the "react to enemy" aspect of the AI with CV TFs. Doo dee doo dee dooo, off we go into an hornet's nest of LBA. There should be some form of Air Zone of Control mechanism based on recon of bases to establish level of LBA presence which would make the AI "think:rolleyes: " before reacting. I'm hoping.

Originally posted by madflava13
I think it's a matter of time period. During UV, the US was more careful with CVs as there were fewer to risk. I'd agree with you about fast moving forces later in the war though. If WitP is dominated by LBA, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly - that one's a wait and see though.

For UV, I'm still pretty satisfied with the balance. The New Guinea campaign was dominated by LBA, which occurs here. I think the possible ahistorical "overuse" of LBA elsewhere (SOPAC) is a result of players having hindsight and therefore deviating from the results that occured historically. For instance, a player can strip units from backwater bases and be relatively certain that the IJN won't attack whereas the historical counterpart couldn't always be so sure, so more front-line units needed to be kept back. I don't think there's anyway to design around that though. Maybe some sort of requirements or guidelines that follow the strict historical application, but I don't think many gamers want their hands tied like that.

There is an easy way to resolve that. Dont allow B-17 to make anti-shipping attacks. Remove the mission.
See? that was very easy.

The other way would be to make the model accurate.
Which as Frag pointed out, it is not.

The problem with 'restricting' an effective mission to 'high exp' groups, is that the player will then connive to raise the exp of the group to the magical level where suddenly they become effective.

It is that type of 'gamey' useage that breaks the model.
If that type of tweaking were prevented, then there would be no problem.

Originally posted by Mogami
"The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase."

(more when I stop laughing)

OK I've had to reread that post a dozen times to make sure it is saying what I think it is saying.

UV has been out for over 14 months. I figured that out the first time I tried it. There have been hundreds of posts concerning Aircombat TF's set to react that run up into enemy LBA range.
(We all learned not to use react on if the TF was any where near where this could occur.

CV aircraft are poor airbase closers. Unless the airfield is size four or smaller.

It is well established before venturing into LBA range you first must hit the airfield with long range bombers and surface bombardment groups.

I find it very surprising that you find it remarkable that Japanese CV might be hurt if they are in range of escorted strikes from large well stocked airfields.

Did I understand the post correctly?

Surprising? What does that mean in this context?

In combination with the 'gimping' of the Zero and the demonstratable bias of US fighters, Kido Butai is not able to survive combined airstikes 'en mass'.

However...oddly enough the USN IS.

I have found that any TF I have in UV where I have 6 USN CV
in one hex is virtually immune to ANY airstrike EXCEPT
the hypothetical ALL LBA at Rabual and they manage to all launch
strike. ONLY in that case, are the USN CV at risk.

"In combination with the 'gimping' of the Zero and the demonstratable bias of US fighters, Kido Butai is not able to survive combined airstikes 'en mass'."



(more when I stop laughing again)


However...oddly enough the USN IS.

"I have found that any TF I have in UV where I have 6 USN CV
in one hex is virtually immune to ANY airstrike EXCEPT
the hypothetical ALL LBA at Rabual and they manage to all launch
strike. ONLY in that case, are the USN CV at risk"

(more when I stop laughing harder)


Hi, OK it was the "combined airstrikes en mass" that set me off on the first point.


Then again "Only in that case are the USN CV at risk" Japanese combined airstrikes en mass will hurt the USN CV.

weak scattered attacks do not hurt the IJN CV very often. (and thats what you get early in the game)

During the time period covered by UV the USN never had a 6 CV force operate together. Later when they did they were able to operate in areas where "Combined airstrikes en mass" did not occur. (With pilots trained to levels as Japanese have in UV unless they are squandered away)

Have you never encountered a Japanese player who places all his CV in the same hex and runs around terrorizing the allied player?

If the USN player takes the time to upgrade his ships and then massess them they are a very potent force. If he tries the same tactic without first upgrading the ships he gets much poorer results.

However even if the USN player waits for all 6 CV and upgrades the escort AA if he sails within range of escorted Betty/Nells he is in for a rude shock. (I've seen 200 Betty/Nell with 100+ Zero escorts make a strike and sink outright 2 USN CV (The IJN suffered heavy loss and USN CV were in 3 TF in same hex but one TF lost both CV) (And 4 days later IJN TF's with 10 CV sank remaining 4 USN CV.

What I mean by surprising is, are these statements in earnest.
Do these results really puzzle you or give you pause to wonder at them?

Large airfields are dangerous, you didn't know this?
Large combined mass airstrikes are dangerous to which ever side is on the bombing end. You didn't know this?

You think these results are incorrect?

Originally posted by Mogami
"In combination with the 'gimping' of the Zero and the demonstratable bias of US fighters, Kido Butai is not able to survive combined airstikes 'en mass'."



(more when I stop laughing again)


However...oddly enough the USN IS.

"I have found that any TF I have in UV where I have 6 USN CV
in one hex is virtually immune to ANY airstrike EXCEPT
the hypothetical ALL LBA at Rabual and they manage to all launch
strike. ONLY in that case, are the USN CV at risk"

(more when I stop laughing harder)


Hi, OK it was the "combined airstrikes en mass" that set me off on the first point.


Then again "Only in that case are the USN CV at risk" Japanese combined airstrikes en mass will hurt the USN CV.

weak scattered attacks do not hurt the IJN CV very often. (and thats what you get early in the game)

During the time period covered by UV the USN never had a 6 CV force operate together. Later when they did they were able to operate in areas where "Combined airstrikes en mass" did not occur. (With pilots trained to levels as Japanese have in UV unless they are squandered away)

Have you never encountered a Japanese player who places all his CV in the same hex and runs around terrorizing the allied player?

If the USN player takes the time to upgrade his ships and then massess them they are a very potent force. If he tries the same tactic without first upgrading the ships he gets much poorer results.

However even if the USN player waits for all 6 CV and upgrades the escort AA if he sails within range of escorted Betty/Nells he is in for a rude shock. (I've seen 200 Betty/Nell with 100+ Zero escorts make a strikes and sink outright 2 USN CV (The IJN suffered heavy loss and USN CV were in 3 TF in same hex but one TF lost both CV) (And 4 days later IJN TF's with 10 CV sank remaing 4 USN CV.

What I mean by surprising is, are these statements in earnest.
Do these results really puzzle you or give you pause to wonder at them?

Large airfields are dangerous, you didn't know this?
Large combined mass airstrikes are dangerous to which ever side is on the bombing end. You didn't know this?

You think these results are incorrect?

I have not had the results you claim to.
I have seen a miniscule strike of 60 planes breakthru CAP
and badly beat up Kido Butai.
I have NOT seen that with USN CV.

After Midway I dont recall the Japs having 6 CV let alone putting them all in one hex. There is no standard for comparison.
I DO know however that CACTUS itself was NOT deemed sufficient
to stave off the Japs by itself. Thus we have the Battle of the
Eastern Solomans.

In UV it is very easy to see a fragmented strike get slaughtered.
I have never seen a FULL LBA attack launched from rabual against the USN where they ALL launch. Almost always something
goes wrong.

Originally posted by Chiteng
I have not had the results you claim to.
I have seen a miniscule strike of 60 planes breakthru CAP
and badly beat up Kido Butai.
I have NOT seen that with USN CV.

After Midway I dont recall the Japs having 6 CV let alone putting them all in one hex. There is no standard for comparison.
I DO know however that CACTUS itself was NOT deemed sufficient
to stave off the Japs by itself. Thus we have the Battle of the
Eastern Solomans.

In UV it is very easy to see a fragmented strike get slaughtered.
I have never seen a FULL LBA attack launched from rabual against the USN where they ALL launch. Almost always something
goes wrong.

Hi, What am I to do with you Chiteng? Your a bright lad. A bit too stuborn for my taste. You need to stop and think things out.

"CATUS itself was NOT deemed sufficient to stave off the Japs be itself" Is this the the size 1-2-3 airfield captuered in Aug 42 or the airfield in May 43?

"After Midway I dont recall the Japs having 6 CV let alone putting them all in one hex. "

No but at Midway they were all in one hex and the LBA had no effect on them (unless you consider it had an effect on the impact of the arriving USN Strike later)

Place all 6 CV in one hex in UV and you can steam around most allied bases. (Just don't confuse the empty Noumea of May 42 with what you will find there in May 43) Townsville is no problem during most of 42.

I liked the way you said in another post "the allied player will connive to train his pilots" to raise their level if missions are defined by experiance levels. That rates another LOL

Do you mean to say if you have pilots that can not fly a mission because they are not trained you would not take the time to train them? Thats the issue. Not that the mission will never be flown (and make it dangerous to get close to LBA) but that for a time it will be less dangerous (while the pilots train)

I'm never certain you are serious. I always think you are just pulling our collective tails with some of your posts.
(Because the answer is so clear to me I wonder how you can't see it)

The longer a war lasts the more deadly it gets. This has always been true in all wars. Green troops do not kill as well as troops that have had a lot of practice.

Events that occur in one period of a war can not be supposed to have been possible at any other (early/later) Green troops don't have the skill to do some things early. Then what was once easy becomes impossible (German U-boat 1939 compare to German U-boat 1945) Or what was once impossible becomes easy.
(The Great Turkey Shoot)

War is not static. Nether should you be (Iraqi Info Minister) You have to always beware of change. (and be vigerous in enacting positive change and on guard to prevent negative changes)

Are these issues really so bewildering?

Anyone else have these issues? post up so I can figure out what is wrong.

That last post by Mogami should settle things. I'd leave town if the post were directed at me.

Until the B-17's are no longer the invincible ship destroyers of UV,
the issue will never be settled.

Originally posted by Chiteng
Until the B-17's are no longer the invincible ship destroyers of UV,
the issue will never be settled.

Hi, Go read AAR Dadman/Mogami. It was a scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN. I did not use the B-17 in antiship missions. (With a few unsuccessfull exceptions)

Chiteng,
I know you get dumped on a lot - I've been guilty of it as well. Can you post a zip file of a turn with one of the B-17 strikes you talk about? Or Kido Butai getting creamed by LBA? I mean we've all beaten this stuff to death, and we're all pretty settled into our respective camps. I'd just like to settle it once and for all and move on. So if you have a save game or a screen shot from a strike that shows what you're talking about, I would really like to see it. I think it might help swing more people to your point of view or at least get everyone to simmer down a bit if they could see it with their own eyes...

Hi, Yes please. I'd love to see the replay where unescorted B-17's come in and sink your IJN CV (or even score a hit or two.)(at sea)

I know you get dumped on a lot - I've been guilty of it as well. Can you post a zip file of a turn with one of the B-17 strikes you talk about? Or Kido Butai getting creamed by LBA? I mean we've all beaten this stuff to death, and we're all pretty settled into our respective camps. I'd just like to settle it once and for all and move on. So if you have a save game or a screen shot from a strike that shows what you're talking about, I would really like to see it. I think it might help swing more people to your point of view or at least get everyone to simmer down a bit if they could see it with their own eyes...

Hi, Yes please. I'd love to see the replay where unescorted B-17's come in and sink your IJN CV (or even score a hit or two.)(at sea)

Be careful, I asked Chiteng for evidence and he accused me of being a liar...evidently he has made this information clearly available to us all and if you dont see it you're lying.

Hi, I think he should make sure his settings are on historical.

If Chiteng is not prepared to lay his cards on the table by running a solid set of B-17 vs Kido Butai (or whatever) tests, perhaps another player(s) could do it and present them publicly in an "open" thread. That way everyone knows what the reality is and we might save some server space for other topics.

Before I ended my UV playing to concentrate on WitP, I ran some tests along the same lines and posted my findings. A more extensive series of tests by UV players may help clarify exactly what the most probable results will be.

Cheers

I really think this issue would go away if two things in UV were fixed:

1) Fatigue rates for CAP were downgraded to make CAP sustainable instead of the current good for a few turns max.

2) Disablement for AA units was quartered so units didn't become completely worthless when subjected to daily LBA.

As it sits now, UV is just silly in these regards. We already know this has been partially fixed in WitP as it is quite obviously a problem, be we don't have WitP yet, so we continue to suffer from this abuse in UV.

Not much point picking on Chiteng as to a certain extent he is quite right, he just singles out the B-17 specifically when it is more of a general problem with players abilities to impose extremes in UV that were not historically possible like basing 200+ LBAs at a single base to ensure rediculous levels of suppression, etc). This is not England where aircraft took off from 30 separate airfields to form up for a raid on Germany. This is the Pacific where it took an hour to get 12 aircraft up from a single base. UV's abstraction of time into two phases steals the reality of this from us and makes such silly things possible.

Mogami's AARs while being a good indicator of what things are like show one thing clearly (please note Mogami doesn't send his LBA in at 100/1000 feet), use of planes historically result in historical results. If Mogami cared to switch to the silly tactics that others use such as mass carpet bombing at low altitudes, he would see Chiteng's issues, but he plays the game without exploiting it's obvious weakness.

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Go read AAR Dadman/Mogami. It was a scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN. I did not use the B-17 in antiship missions. (With a few unsuccessfull exceptions)

Yes, better to husband them, train them, and then unleash them to pound the crap out of my forward bases from Oct '42 onward...