Matrix Games Forums

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

4e bombers on ground attack missions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> 4e bombers on ground attack missions Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 4:13:22 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6051
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Am I one of the few players that has a House Rule (HR) against using the B-17/24 on ground attack missions (they are not allowed below 10k for any mission)?? Reading some of the AARs and some responses to my postings, are they too effective in this role?? Some players seems to use them as "uber-attack" aircraft with those large payloads.

I play both sides, so I'm not a fan boy by any stretch. Rather than use the traditional 2e bombers in the ground attack role, the 4e bombers have taken over.

OK, mini-rant over.

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 4:25:06 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 14829
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline 		My opinion-perhaps slightly biased towards the Japanese side

I'm torn myself. I believe that, against troops in the open, massed B17/B24 attacks would be / were devastating. A HR to put a floor of 10,000 feet for these OPS would be 'helpful' for the recipient of these attacks. But I believe that they have the RL capacity to do great harm.

The imbalance (and yes, I do believe there is an imbalance) is the comparative invulnerability of these airframes versus early IJ fighter defense. There's also the documented and much decried over effectiveness of the bombers in shooting down fighters, hence the origin of the 'bomber sweep' term. Many Allied players won't even bother escorting them against early war IJ fighters-why should they? The escort will get murdered , the B17s will shoot down plenty of opposition and carry out their mission regardless.

I don't think anything will be done against this in the vast majority of cases. The Allies feel as though (with merit) the Japanese production system is whacked and able to produce tremendous numbers of fighters in defense. When combined with the ability of the IJ to pull late model fighters forward by months or years (!), the Allied players feel righteous indignation and fight to retain to their only real effective weapon platform of the early war-even if it doesn't 'feel' exactly right.

My opinion. YMMV.

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 2
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 4:55:37 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline 		One self imposed rule I am using is no ground attacks by 4 engine bombers if I have ground forces in the hex. I will also keep my bombers at 10,000 feet or higher.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 5:14:07 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4427
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		The issue is that they were effective and also, they weren't used more than a few times.  Why?  Well, a lot of debate on that.  I'm with Dan.  My HR is +10K and not when troops are engaged.  I wish my opponent would respect my HR's*. 



*Andy's AI just gleefully agrees to all of my HR's and completely ignores them. 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 4
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 6:28:50 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

One self imposed rule I am using is no ground attacks by 4 engine bombers if I have ground forces in the hex.


If I ever start another PBEM game, there's two more HRs I'm going to use. This is one, and the other is that players cannot build level 9 airfields (unless they finally fix issues with level 9 airfields and 250 aviation support). I've heard IRL it was hell of a job to keep planes operational, but I don't see anything like that in this game...

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 5
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 2:44:55 PM   
bushpsu

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline 		Just playing Devil's Advocate, but... If USAAF doctrine IRL was angled more towards the strategic role, then in my capacity as the new Hap Arnold in the game why can't I now look at my resources through a tactical lens. I could argue the possibility that the US Army kept a much tighter hold on their flying counterparts and wanted them used in a more supportive role.

Also, an interesting HR might be to allow NO allied 4E's in the game, period. You could postulate that they are ALL being used in Europe and the ones we get in the game are used for training missions only (or not even that). Maybe only get them when the Japanese home islands are in range.

< Message edited by bushpsu -- 5/18/2012 5:25:00 PM >

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 6
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 3:24:56 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Panzer Lehr division learned about 4E capability in ground attack..

actually they were dead.. so they didn't "Lehr" anything

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to bushpsu)
Post #: 7
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 4:25:40 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2314
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline 		NY59Giants ... You read my AAR so you can see various results ... I tempered my 4E attacks, but I was against Home Ruling .. Why? The exact situation the IJ feared in the open no air cover like in Northern Oz .. Fighter straffing is borked in the game and does not do really anything as far as I can see [I would love to see supply interdiction]....so I use 4E's to project power.

But troops in the open no forts, unopposed 4E's @ 8000 feet -- a stack of 50K~ troops I produced 4:1~ causulties --- 200 4E bombers have taken out about 800 - 1000 troops in my game

Same situation fortification level 3 300 - 500

Light Urban fort level 3 200 - 400

Jungle 50 ...

Now put fighters up and my results get cut 1/2 to 1/4 ...plus operational losses and damage

So ... put your troops in the open no air cover .. and they will get creamed ...

One thing I do think is funny .. the IJFB's have no qualms about PDU-on, scenrario #2 or R.A., using submarines focused on merchant warfare, stretcing the empire further than that guy with the funny moustache, threaten the United States by capturing Alaska .. but Allied troops are being withdrawn on a time table because well that is what happend when the IJN lost at Midway.... but for the AFB's to strike moving troops in the open desert of Northern Oz .. FOUL .. the game is borked . so non historical etc etc etc ...

WitPAE is NOT a similation whatsoever ... there are those in this group that believe that, but have never designed nor coded a similation to understand the difference .. it really is not a game in the strict sense either in my opinion, rather WitP AE seems more like a play where the script and ending is already written. How the players play the roles changes but in short the Allies dominate once '44 happends .... The GreyJoy/Radier contest I beleive is evidence of this .. But we can come up with HR's to try and limit the Allies and make some sort of game out of it .. but it is very very difficult to find the right match ...

I would say that the debate might change from some warping of an historical perspective to in order to try and make a game of this to the following rules are suggested to make this a worthwhile contest ..

nuff of my rant ...

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 8
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 6:22:24 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 769
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		No 4E's on ground attacks? Sounds good.

What HR is in place to limit the overpowered effectiveness of the Netty/Belly torpedo attacks agianst ships?



(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 9
RE: 4e bombers on ground attack missions - 5/18/2012 7:19:36 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I've been in situation (late 1942 and early 1943) where every allied delibrate attack is supported by 200 to 300 4Es, flying almost daily. IMO that's too much, something like once a week would be fine for me. But not daily. Historically that kind of massive strikes needed lot of recon and preparations, not just two mouse clicks.

No matter the side, I want to keep things real. I don't want to do something just because game engine allows me to do it. As a JFB, I don't want to play scenario 2, use PDU, get jets in 1943, invade India using amphibious bonus, use crap japanese bombers flying low level naval attack... I don't want to see stack of thousands planes just because 250 aviation support is enough maintain them all (stupid rule from UV ) That's the way I want to play my game, and I hope my opponents have similar vision.

Babes mods have reduced bomb effectiveness. I hope that'll make this game better, more realistic, so that there's no need to 4E house rules anymore.

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> 4e bombers on ground attack missions Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.272