surviving the heavies

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
alfrake
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:20 am

surviving the heavies

Post by alfrake »

What does Japan do, in the early game, against Allied heavy bombers? For example, last turn combat report:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 69

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 53
LB-30 Liberator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 8 destroyed, 17 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed
Ki-15 Babs: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 4 destroyed, 45 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed, 15 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
551 casualties reported
Guns lost 10

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 19

Aircraft Attacking:
26 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
6 x LB-30 Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
1 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
4 x LB-30 Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I interecepted him with basically as many fighters as he sent bombers but I took more losses in air-to-air combat. He still got enough bombs through to kill 500 guys on the ground, plus another 7 planes. Obviously I can put my zeros on CAP as well, but I think that's just asking to get my elite pilots shredded. I wouldn't mind the air-to-air loses if I could actually reduce the bomb damage, but that doesn't seem possible.


PBEM, scen 15, latest official version (1.62?)

PS I know this has to get talked about a lot, but I couldn't find anything really on point. You can call me dumb and give me a link if you want. :)
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by wild_Willie2 »

Play a mod....

NIKMOD is a very nice mod. it reduces the effect of heavy's in the game and increases the effect of japanese fighters.
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7188
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Feinder »

In short, you can't.

If you're Japan, just expect any base within 13 hexes a size AF(5) or better, to be demolished.

I say size 5, because the losses flying massed 4e formations from a AF(4) is -very- prohibitive (usu on the order of 60% damages). And for what it's worth, if you -do- see lots of B-17s flying from AF(4), that is definately an invitation to bomb the place, I can guarentee half them damaged.

And of course, ye olde massive BB TF works very well too.

I'd bet he's flying from Dacca and Calcutta (exactly what I do). Your BBs can't shoot 120 miles inland, so that's out. But yes, Burma is crater just waiting to happen. You can write off anything north of (and including) Tavoy.

You can't win Burma. You can take Burma as Japan. But he's going to bomb the snot out if and every plan you put there.

For the Allies, the best way to kill a Zero is on the ground. Same for Japan, the best way to kill a B-17 is on the ground.

-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by rtrapasso »

One thing you CAN do is make it expensive for the Allies.

Stop using Oscars Ibs to try and stop bombers - they have 1 x 7.7 mm mg and 1 x 12.7 mm machine gun, while you are facing something like 8 x .50 caliber and a 1 x .30 cal MGs from a B-17E, and 10 x .50 cal MG on B-24s. B-17s and B-24s are heavily built. Oscars apparently were constructed from bailing wire and tissue paper. Guess who is going to suffer more when Oscars try to take on Allied heavies in equal number?

It sounds like you are playing with PDUs ON. If so, Japan can produce all kinds of fighters. Make something more useful than an Oscar to take on the heavies. Tonys are good at this. Zeroes are armed with 20 cannon and can take down heavies (although they will suffer while doing so). Check what aircraft you can produce with heavy armament, and good dur, and forget Oscars. They are woefully underrated in WITP imo.

User avatar
hawker
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Split,Croatia

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by hawker »

You must understand that in this game 4E bombers are weapons from the future[;)]. No way you can repel them,maybe with stingers,but just maybe.
Image
Fortess fortuna iuvat
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by moses »

But again and again here is what noone seems to understand.

You didn't take 551 casualties. Forget what the combat report says. What happened was you had about that many troops moved from the ready catagory to the disabled catagory. These will recover. And the only reason you took that many is because I suspect you're base is overstacked and at a low fortification level.


Look at what really happened. 75 heavy bombers hit an overstacked airbase defended by obsolete fighters. They did very minor damage to the airfield. (3 base hits 19 runway). I would guess that the engineers had everything pretty much cleaned up by the start of the next turn. This is not armagedon.

Get some zero's flying over the base and those unescorted bombers will not be so scary.

I would agree that it would be good or 4E replacement rates to be dropped in the stock scenario. IRL if 75 B17's hit you're airbase you're in big trouble. Shouldn't be 75 B17's in Jan 42.
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7188
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Feinder »

This thread is going to heat up. But I hate to break it to you, but 4e bombers -were- that effective at AF suppression in the Pacific historically. Daily flights of (only) 8 - 12 B-17s demolisheded "Fortress Rabaul" in the space of about 4 weeks.

-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
niceguy2005
Posts: 12522
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Super secret hidden base

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by niceguy2005 »

THere is no way you should be getting clobbered as the Japanese player in 1/42. Move in 100 zeros and 100 BEttys. Let the Zeros take on the 4Es and Send the Bettys in to hit his airfield with a decent escort. In a few days he will either have to pull the bomber units out or they will be decimated
Image
Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
User avatar
pauk
Posts: 4156
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb,Croatia

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by pauk »

ORIGINAL: moses

Get some zero's flying over the base and those unescorted bombers will not be so scary.


I agree. You still have Zero bonus. Move 4 Zero Daitais there and prepare ambush for him there... trust me he will stop attack Bankok.

(tm.asp?m=970358&mpage=2)...

But once when your Zero bonus expires and Allies start getting new groups etc... yes, you are doomed....
Image
worr
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by worr »

He still got enough bombs through to kill 500 guys on the ground, plus another 7 planes.

Casualties aren't deaths.

Worr, out
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Przemcio231 »

Try some House Rules[:D] like heavis can only fly from Lv 6 AF and no US 4E's BG's in India , and DEI...[:D]
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Mr.Frag »

B-17E Fortress x 53
LB-30 Liberator x 24

Try something better, a house rule that says NO USA aircraft in India ... until a naval convoy path is established

I really wish we got that AV support rule coded that only allowed base units to support their own to put an end to this silliness.

Can you honestly see the US government releasing their best aircraft to parts unknown when they were starving for them personally. Can see it now, sorry boys, you don't get your planes this month, we gave them to those silly Brits in India instead ... nevermind the fact that we can't get there from here [8|]
User avatar
Dino
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:14 pm
Location: Serbia

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Dino »

And the AVG would have been so much more useful on the West Coast ??? [;)]
Image
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Przemcio231 »

Mr Frag maybe that rule could be inputed via some path[:D]
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by moses »

ORIGINAL: Feinder

This thread is going to heat up. But I hate to break it to you, but 4e bombers -were- that effective at AF suppression in the Pacific historically. Daily flights of (only) 8 - 12 B-17s demolisheded "Fortress Rabaul" in the space of about 4 weeks.

-F-


Agree. The problem is not with the bombers being too effective. The problem is that there are way too many of them way too early. 4E bomber replacement rates should be reduced.

Based on my current games I do not think a 50% reduction in bomber replacement would be all that constraining. It would however prevent players from being able to convert multiple groups to 4E as early as Jan 42 and begin these early bomber offensives.
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Przemcio231 »

The problem is that there are way too many of them way too early. 4E bomber replacement rates should be reduced.


Yep that could be the thing... remeber most of the B-17's was send to Europe[:D] to bomb Hitler&Co
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Mr.Frag »

remeber most of the B-17's was send to Europe

which is pretty much why you would NEVER see them in India [:D]
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Przemcio231 »

So you see something like that could be added to the Next Patch or not[:D]
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
User avatar
Dino
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:14 pm
Location: Serbia

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Dino »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
remeber most of the B-17's was send to Europe

which is pretty much why you would NEVER see them in India [:D]

So, how come there are some groups that are actualy ASSIGNED to SEAC ?[X(]
Image
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: surviving the heavies

Post by Nikademus »

the bombers are too effective because there are too many of them (4E) and because they can blitz your airbase from very low altitude.


Frag is right from the historical angle. India/Burma was the bottom end of the logistical food chain. The British did send a few Liberators eventually, based out of Calcutta where the facilities were adequate to service them.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”