Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Q-Ball (A)

[GreyJoy]

But i do have a precise plan for my Air force. I don't wanna do like Rader who sent nearly 40k pilots to death in less than 4 years... i'll be very aggressive initially, being ready to sacrifice some of my crack pilots in order to get the initial conquests needed by my Empire, then i'll try to save them and keep a very strong CAP airforce, using the recruits for escort missions....
 
However i'd like to concentrate my production on the really usefull planes (so to say George, N1K, KI-83 and the Frances), leaving the rest for when they will be arriving in stock dates.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

-Just one Port attack on turn one (no matter if conducted by CVs or
LBA - i don't like the mutli port attack rule used ny John III for
example)
-Reliable torps off, allied damage control on
-Para units must be whole before paradroppping (not fragments all over)
-Landing or paradrops only on base or dot-base hexes
-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).
-1 week russian activation if Japan decides to invade.
-Thai units can move into the Burma panhandle and Indochina.
- No 4Es on ground bombing mission allowed (this is a must for me
imho, cause the 4Es can really unbalance the late war allied advance
and the allies got plenty 2Es for that job)
- Only 50 engines for each AF level (level 0 AF can have 25 engines
anyway). This should slow down a lot the pace of the game, along with
the DBB's aviation support limitations
-4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 15k feet
- What about night bombing? I saw someone proposed only during night
with at least 50% moonlight....
- No strat bombing before 1943 .
-No Allied Air or naval units in Russia are allowed, even if Russia is
activated.
- No Mersing Gambit on turn 1
- SWEEP and CAP altitudes.... this is a very important rule imho cause
i hate the stratosphere sweep.... i've used the 2nd mnvr best altitude
in my last match and it seemed to work fine.... i've also seen that
someone else used a fix altitude: 20k for 1942. 25k for 1943, 30k for
1944 and no limits for 1945... what do you think?

- no 1 ship TF


these are the HRs i suggested....what do you think?

A few suggested modifications

-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).

This is a severe penalty on the Allies if they are honoring the system and paying retail to buy out units. I voluntarily tried this in my long standing game with Viperpol but it is unworkable as you simply can't afford to buy out enough Indian units even in late 44 for a sustained attack into Burma. And if China is going down (as it will) the Allies need a chance to counter in Burma. A more reasonable suggestion is to use this rule but require it of the Allies in India/Burma until 1/44 but release the Allies from this obligation after that date. Also, I would exempt any base connected by road to India (Akyab) from this rule at all times.

- No 4Es on ground bombing mission allowed (this is a must for me
imho, cause the 4Es can really unbalance the late war allied advance
and the allies got plenty 2Es for that job)

Think carefully about this. The Allies are very short of medium bombers until early 44. This gives a heavy bonus to Japan as Japan is never short of mediums. I would restrict ground bombing by 4Es to 10,000 feet.


-4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 15k feet

I have the most problem with this as this completely removes the PBY liberator from its historical role-naval interdiction at low altitude. In our game we allow PBYs to low level naval attack but limit it to one squadron set to naval attack per base. This works almost perfectly as you do not get massed naval attacks but small interdiction attacks and the PBYs rarely attack a well capped TF. Do this instead.

Very wise suggestion mate!

I fully agree on the PBYs! Done!
For the ground bombing...10k feet is enough to prevent the "total annihilation in one run" effect? I'm not so sure...
About the PPs...mmm....you're right. PPs are always short for the allies...i know that.... hopefully the hex-stacking-limit would be enough to prevent the "russian masses" we see in Burma in some games.... What do the others think about that?

[Cribtop]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.

My opponent is going nuts in repsonse to my ground bombing campaign. [:D] But I see a problem.

I might propose at least three factors in delivering an area type weapon. The lethality radius of the device, the circular error probability of the delivery platform, and the density/protection of the target. Results seem reasonable until a low densoty target like 1,000 troops meets up with 300 Heavy Bombers ... even in clear terrain I would expect surviors .. but I am able to completely depopulate atolls and clear hexes at will. Instead of a graduated result depending on target density I am seeing results that stupify the imagination .. I wish that the developers at least understood this part of the equation ... thus usign 200 HB's against such a target would have compaiable diminshing returns ... What I have been doing is cutting back on sorties rather than increase altitudes ..

Ahh, the linear Gary Grigsby rears his head again.

I think banning 4Es against ground forces is the wrong balance, but the ability to depopulate clear terrain is unrealistic. Some limits on number of air groups employed may be advised.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

You may see an unbalance and think it is unfair....however, the destructive power from the air of the Allies in WW2 was incredible.

My opponent is going nuts in repsonse to my ground bombing campaign. [:D] But I see a problem.

I might propose at least three factors in delivering an area type weapon. The lethality radius of the device, the circular error probability of the delivery platform, and the density/protection of the target. Results seem reasonable until a low densoty target like 1,000 troops meets up with 300 Heavy Bombers ... even in clear terrain I would expect surviors .. but I am able to completely depopulate atolls and clear hexes at will. Instead of a graduated result depending on target density I am seeing results that stupify the imagination .. I wish that the developers at least understood this part of the equation ... thus usign 200 HB's against such a target would have compaiable diminshing returns ... What I have been doing is cutting back on sorties rather than increase altitudes ..

Ahh, the linear Gary Grigsby rears his head again.

I think banning 4Es against ground forces is the wrong balance, but the ability to depopulate clear terrain is unrealistic. Some limits on number of air groups employed may be advised.

Hi Crib, don't you think that, with the HR that limits the max a/c per base to "50 engines*AF lvl" should be enough to prevent any depopulation 4E campaign?
i mean, with this rule into a level 9 AF you could only base 150 4Es and 50 fighters....which is already a lot i know, but we know the coordination penalities that are already present in the system.... so that the allies will be forced to coordinate their strikes using multi supporting AFs in order to give to their air force organization a good CAP cover, a sweeping force and a striking one (with decent escort). Thinking about it i now realize that the anti-Af overstacking rule is really enough.
I'll propose to delete the no-4Es on ground strike HR.




Now, talking a bit about strategy....

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I understand Seille, but so where should i be more conservative? Less Kates and Vals maybe?

I don't think that conservativeness in early air production is a good idea and particularly in Scen 2 which gives Japan a metric ton of extra supply to use on production. Against a good Allied opponent I would want at least 90 Zeros and about 120-150 Oscars per month, and at least 70 of both Betties and Sallies (in addition to light bomber/Nell production) per month. While A6M2 upgrade line is discouraging (it does not actually lead to A6M3 and other upgrades but to Sen Baku fighter bomber, so you actually might be more cautious with expanding A6M2 factories), there is no reason not to expand production of Oscars - later you can upgrade the factories to Ki-43-IIb/IIIa and produce them until the end of war for your kamikaze needs. And if production numbers will turn out to be excessive, it is much less painful to just turn off a factory for a time, than be stuck with a lack of planes on the frontline. As about Vals/Kates production, 35 of each was enough for me, but I'm cautious with my carriers. Of course, when you later in the game will need to refit carrier strike squadrons with new types, a much higher production is recommended unless you want this process to take forever. Also, I'd recommend to expand E13A production to 45-50 and H6K4 to at least 25.

[JohnDillworth]

GreyJoy, a quick note on pilots. You get lots. Raeder managed to keep decent pilots in the air so you only have to be a little careful. Not so for the IJN pilots. I think he ran that pool dry. I believe he did that through some massive over-aggressiveness in the SW pacific.
Actually, a question. I also have Windows 7 64. Did you get tracker working and if so how?

[Cap Mandrake]

I am to understand this is a 3 page AAR about a future AAR? [:D]

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have the most problem with this as this completely removes the PBY liberator from its historical role-naval interdiction at low altitude. In our game we allow PBYs to low level naval attack but limit it to one squadron set to naval attack per base. This works almost perfectly as you do not get massed naval attacks but small interdiction attacks and the PBYs rarely attack a well capped TF. Do this instead.

A nit: the PBY Catalina is a twin-engine flying boat. The PB4Y Privateer was the Navy designation for the B-24 Liberator. The PB4Y doesn't show up until 1943. Both aircraft were principally used for naval search, then ASW, and naval attack only third.

The B-17 was developed with one of its official missions being coast defense, and in fact the US tried using it for naval strikes repeatedly... with very poor results.

Just some historical information to bear in mind when deciding on your house rules.

A suggestion on the airbase thing: I've noted that it appears the current version of Babes (all version of the game?) will let you run a Lvl9 airbase with only 250 aviation support, no matter how many planes are there. All lower-level airfields seem to be treated fairly reasonably in terms of limited groups/engines operational. I contend that the only thing that is broken is the Lvl9's. Two fixes: first, mandate that you can NEVER have aircraft at a base (possibly excluding those in reserve) in excess of the number of aviation support present. This should limit a lot of abuses. Second, cap the number of engines at Lvl9's, although I strongly suggest capping it at something like 100-200 engines per level rather than 50 (math again - that's 450 engines, or 100 4E's and 50 1E's, AKA two mid-war bomb groups and two pursuit squadrons for the USAAF - at that density for 1600 square nautical miles the 8th AF couldn't have fit in southern England.

Remember that a Lvl9 can usually only be built in a hex that is mostly land and really represents multiple actual airfields. I 100% agree they are overpowered by the game engine limits, but I think you're nerfing them too much.

Edit to add: if you want to nerf early/mid war 4E abuses, perhaps require that 4E bomb groups be kept together (they usually were), and can only fly strike missions out of bases that have one US Army Air HQ per group (using the limited number of unrestricted USA HQa to represent the limited supply of the highly specialized 4E ground echelons)?

[witpqs]

Neither Babes nor any other scenario has control over how much air support is required per plane. That is strictly a code issue. It was posted a couple of months ago by the developers that the initial intention was to remove the 250 air support ceiling but that was erroneously omitted when AE was released. AFAIK it is planned to fix that (remove the 250 ceiling) in the next patch. At that point 1 sir support will be required for each plane no matter how many are present.

As far as an operational limit on level 9 air fields, that would be a separate issue.

[Cap Mandrake]

Do you guys mean to say that folks are using massed PBY raids for naval attack?

That is seriously gamey.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I understand Seille, but so where should i be more conservative? Less Kates and Vals maybe?

I don't think that conservativeness in early air production is a good idea and particularly in Scen 2 which gives Japan a metric ton of extra supply to use on production. Against a good Allied opponent I would want at least 90 Zeros and about 120-150 Oscars per month, and at least 70 of both Betties and Sallies (in addition to light bomber/Nell production) per month. While A6M2 upgrade line is discouraging (it does not actually lead to A6M3 and other upgrades but to Sen Baku fighter bomber, so you actually might be more cautious with expanding A6M2 factories), there is no reason not to expand production of Oscars - later you can upgrade the factories to Ki-43-IIb/IIIa and produce them until the end of war for your kamikaze needs. And if production numbers will turn out to be excessive, it is much less painful to just turn off a factory for a time, than be stuck with a lack of planes on the frontline. As about Vals/Kates production, 35 of each was enough for me, but I'm cautious with my carriers. Of course, when you later in the game will need to refit carrier strike squadrons with new types, a much higher production is recommended unless you want this process to take forever. Also, I'd recommend to expand E13A production to 45-50 and H6K4 to at least 25.

Thanks FaTR! i see your points. It's still unclear to me how the pilots-pool work, so i don't get the whole problem related to late war japanese pool....playing allies i simply filled my training ranks with green pilots in their 30s and i never had any problem but i do understand that with Japan i'll have to be more conservative even with green pilots as they are not infinite.

My planning is simply to encrese those numbers posted above slowly through december, so not to run dry my supply and HI surplus too fast. I'd like to have my industry with the right settings by the end of march 42, when i'll be able to say if the Empire has reached its minimal objectives or not

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

GreyJoy, a quick note on pilots. You get lots. Raeder managed to keep decent pilots in the air so you only have to be a little careful. Not so for the IJN pilots. I think he ran that pool dry. I believe he did that through some massive over-aggressiveness in the SW pacific.
Actually, a question. I also have Windows 7 64. Did you get tracker working and if so how?

Nope. Tracker doesn't work on my Windows 7 laptop. I checked and the 1.8 version is still working on my old XP desktop...but when i tried to install there the 1.9.2 version (to see if it was a problem related with the OS) i simply bumped on the same problem...there seems to be something i don't understand in the latest tracker version [:(]
Damian is trying to help me out of this but the fact that my brain is stiff like a brick wall is not helping him

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I am to understand this is a 3 page AAR about a future AAR? [:D]

Four now....[:'(]

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380


A suggestion on the airbase thing: I've noted that it appears the current version of Babes (all version of the game?) will let you run a Lvl9 airbase with only 250 aviation support, no matter how many planes are there. All lower-level airfields seem to be treated fairly reasonably in terms of limited groups/engines operational. I contend that the only thing that is broken is the Lvl9's. Two fixes: first, mandate that you can NEVER have aircraft at a base (possibly excluding those in reserve) in excess of the number of aviation support present. This should limit a lot of abuses. Second, cap the number of engines at Lvl9's, although I strongly suggest capping it at something like 100-200 engines per level rather than 50 (math again - that's 450 engines, or 100 4E's and 50 1E's, AKA two mid-war bomb groups and two pursuit squadrons for the USAAF - at that density for 1600 square nautical miles the 8th AF couldn't have fit in southern England.

Remember that a Lvl9 can usually only be built in a hex that is mostly land and really represents multiple actual airfields. I 100% agree they are overpowered by the game engine limits, but I think you're nerfing them too much.

Edit to add: if you want to nerf early/mid war 4E abuses, perhaps require that 4E bomb groups be kept together (they usually were), and can only fly strike missions out of bases that have one US Army Air HQ per group (using the limited number of unrestricted USA HQa to represent the limited supply of the highly specialized 4E ground echelons)?

mmmm....another very wise suggestion.
You guys are really making my mind puzzled.... I'd like to have a rule that it's simple enough to be easily followed turn after turn...at the same time i don't wanna nerf the best allied weapon but wanna have a realisticly slow-paced game....
I'm still waiting for my opponent's opinion.... in the end it's him who's gonna play with those limitations and i think it must be up to him to chose what he likes and what he considers balanced.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Neither Babes nor any other scenario has control over how much air support is required per plane. That is strictly a code issue. It was posted a couple of months ago by the developers that the initial intention was to remove the 250 air support ceiling but that was erroneously omitted when AE was released. AFAIK it is planned to fix that (remove the 250 ceiling) in the next patch. At that point 1 sir support will be required for each plane no matter how many are present.

As far as an operational limit on level 9 air fields, that would be a separate issue.

At the moment, in stock scenarios (but afaik it doesn't change in DBB's ones), one can easily mass 3000 planes into a level 9 AF, being sure than with 350 AV every single one of them could be potentially operating, while the 75% of them will fly without problems.... so to say you could easily have 2500 planes flying out of 3000 from a level 9 AF..... the penality for overstacking, imho, is only 25% of grounded planes, no matter how much u overstack...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Do you guys mean to say that folks are using massed PBY raids for naval attack?

That is seriously gamey.

I think they mean only the PB4Y - which were navalized versions of the B-24, and that was done IRL.

Anyway I find them far too useful for search to send them on risky raids. Soft targets make some sense.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Thanks FaTR! i see your points. It's still unclear to me how the pilots-pool work, so i don't get the whole problem related to late war japanese pool....playing allies i simply filled my training ranks with green pilots in their 30s and i never had any problem but i do understand that with Japan i'll have to be more conservative even with green pilots as they are not infinite.

I don't think it is possible to expend all Jap pilots in Scen 2. The main problem is, green pilots won't get you anywhere as Japan. I find myself dedicating over 40% of total Japanese airforce to on-map training to keep pools filled with skill 70 pilots, plus some units in-theatre (such as dedicated escort units) also are replenished with green pilots and undergo whatever training they have time for between missions.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Neither Babes nor any other scenario has control over how much air support is required per plane. That is strictly a code issue. It was posted a couple of months ago by the developers that the initial intention was to remove the 250 air support ceiling but that was erroneously omitted when AE was released. AFAIK it is planned to fix that (remove the 250 ceiling) in the next patch. At that point 1 sir support will be required for each plane no matter how many are present.

As far as an operational limit on level 9 air fields, that would be a separate issue.

At the moment, in stock scenarios (but afaik it doesn't change in DBB's ones), one can easily mass 3000 planes into a level 9 AF, being sure than with 350 AV every single one of them could be potentially operating, while the 75% of them will fly without problems.... so to say you could easily have 2500 planes flying out of 3000 from a level 9 AF..... the penality for overstacking, imho, is only 25% of grounded planes, no matter how much u overstack...

Made a reply earlier but it got lost...

The ceiling is (unfortunately) 250 air support not 350. They have promised it will change in a patch.

The number of planes that can otherwise operate out of a level 9 airfield is a different issue of course. I was really responding to the post that Babes had the 250 ceiling which implied other scenarios didn't have that ceiling. As you say, no change between Babes and Stock, or any other scenarios. It's controlled by the code, not the scenario.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

GreyJoy, a quick note on pilots. You get lots. Raeder managed to keep decent pilots in the air so you only have to be a little careful. Not so for the IJN pilots. I think he ran that pool dry. I believe he did that through some massive over-aggressiveness in the SW pacific.
Actually, a question. I also have Windows 7 64. Did you get tracker working and if so how?

Nope. Tracker doesn't work on my Windows 7 laptop. I checked and the 1.8 version is still working on my old XP desktop...but when i tried to install there the 1.9.2 version (to see if it was a problem related with the OS) i simply bumped on the same problem...there seems to be something i don't understand in the latest tracker version [:(]
Damian is trying to help me out of this but the fact that my brain is stiff like a brick wall is not helping him

I have Windows 7 and asked the same question of witpqs. Here tm.asp?m=2966329&mpage=4&key= post 99
and the subsequent four of five posts is his advice. Seems you need to download 32-bit Java for Tracker to run.

[Prydwen]

Hi,

I also had issues with tracker when I first set it up. Copying the java dll file I think helped and I had issues after patching and had to copy the pw-something.dll file from the game folder and overwrite the one in the tracker folder. Hope that helps!

Joe