Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Bombers

 
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 >> Bombers Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bombers - 2/5/2016 8:00:30 AM   
Willaverill

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 12/22/2015
Status: offline
Level Bombers allies start with:
B-18 Bolo, B-26 Marauder, B-25B Mitchell, B-17 D,E Flying Fortress (did I miss one?)

Which are worth saving and which are rubbish? I am assuming the Mitchells, Es, and Maurauders? with the D's and Bolos as rubbish?

Bombers squadrons are quite empty and would like to start consolidating what I can.

At least the D's have a good "Search" Range and I know all bombing sucks at the beginning. I am in Middle Jan 42 atm.
Post #: 1
RE: Bombers - 2/5/2016 8:21:22 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10384
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
All are useful for something. I use B-18s for training, you lose most of the B-25Bs, if not all of them because the units they come in get withdrawn with planes. For the first year, the Allied workhorse bombers were B-26, B-17E, and A-20. A few B-25Cs were available in the first year, but there really weren't many available until 1943.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Willaverill)
Post #: 2
RE: Bombers - 2/5/2016 12:52:45 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2502
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Use B-18s for training and NavS/ASW.
B-17Ds are great for NavalSearch
B-26s good medium bombers, but very limited in number
B-25s good, but even more limited till 1943
A-20s lighter bomber, but yet even more limited till 1943
A-24s Dive bomber - great for Anti-shipping, you need pilots for them
Blenheim I/IV - medicore, limited numbers

- Actually you have several good bombers, one just has to find a best role for them. But be carefull - their numbers are very limited! Do not waste them away!

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: Bombers - 2/5/2016 2:46:22 PM   
Willaverill

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 12/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Use B-18s for training and NavS/ASW.
B-17Ds are great for NavalSearch
B-26s good medium bombers, but very limited in number
B-25s good, but even more limited till 1943
A-20s lighter bomber, but yet even more limited till 1943
A-24s Dive bomber - great for Anti-shipping, you need pilots for them

Blenheim I/IV - medicore, limited numbers

- Actually you have several good bombers, one just has to find a best role for them. But be carefull - their numbers are very limited! Do not waste them away!


Thank you Barb,

I have been using the B-17's as Search platforms thus far.
The Hudsons are pretty good ASW platforms.

The A-24 Banshees have been tearing up shipping so far from Ambon (a TF of 4 CV, 2 CVE, and 2 BB's are circling Borneo and made that whole area things too hot so moved back to Darwin) and Port Morsby.

I have disbanded a few US Bomber Squadrons for planes that were withdrawing early in '42, and using what I get back to try and save some of those other frames.

Now I just need to think where I can fly those stateside bombers from. (aside from training)

Bill

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 4
RE: Bombers - 2/5/2016 2:58:13 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I personally won't ever use B-17s for naval search. They are simply too good as bombing platforms, even the "D" model

Allies have plenty other naval search assets; enough USN Catalinas to cover most of the Pacific, while British Cats and all Dutch survivors can take care of the Indian Ocean.

B-17s in the other hand, are almost invincible and great for closing airfields, as long as you send them in big numbers, and that is the key... you want big numbers, hence you also need the B-17Ds... so a few sweeps + 400 heavies will close any airfield early war. And there is really nothing Japan can do about it, as most of their early interceptors are inadequate: low durability, no armor, machine gun only armament, etc.

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/5/2016 4:00:39 PM >

(in reply to Willaverill)
Post #: 5
RE: Bombers - 2/5/2016 7:14:44 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2502
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
400 heavies? Where do you get to such numbers in early war? I do not think Allies have that many in 1942 in total... Aren't you playing a different game?

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 6
RE: Bombers - 2/5/2016 8:36:07 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Maybe a bit of exaggeration .. so no; not 400 heavies.

The biggest early war bombing I have done was 377 bombers in total, only 189 of those were 4-engine of all kinds (Liberators& Fortress)
This was done "early" but assumed as 1942 ... exactly on late October:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3691940&mpage=33&key=

But really no need to have 400 heavy bombers, just the combined effort of 2E and 4E terminated oil production in Magwe... in "one" day of bombing...




As you can see I used pretty much everything available

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/6/2016 2:58:37 AM >

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 7
RE: Bombers - 2/6/2016 11:12:08 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1809
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
Scary... as Japanese air force commander :)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 8
RE: Bombers - 2/7/2016 1:46:28 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9449
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
This is why you cannot let the allies sit around and accumulate. You have to push them to commit all the time. That tally above represents a big chunk of what the allies get for 6 months in '42.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 9
RE: Bombers - 2/7/2016 10:02:05 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1809
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
If the Allies assemble a great number of 4E already in 43 and use them cleverly its very dangerous. Even 20 4E at once represent a huge problem if you have not at least 50 fighters flying CAP. If only Oscar maybe better 200

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 10
RE: Bombers - 2/7/2016 2:56:14 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9449
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

If the Allies assemble a great number of 4E already in 43 and use them cleverly its very dangerous. Even 20 4E at once represent a huge problem if you have not at least 50 fighters flying CAP. If only Oscar maybe better 200

Better to say, you need CAP armed with at least 20mm cannon against 4E's. 12.7mm are not very effective at all against them.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 11
RE: Bombers - 2/7/2016 6:38:38 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
The problem (for Japan) is that during early war it lacks a good interceptor plane. Only two models have a chance:

- A6M Zero is too feeble. No armor, low durability; each interception will cost significant losses.
- Ki-45a is not a dogfighter. so the preceding sweeps will take care of them easily.

Oscars, Tojos, etc are completely inadequate.



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/7/2016 7:39:58 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 12
RE: Bombers - 2/8/2016 5:38:47 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2502
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Jorge: That is about 15 US Hvy Bomber squadrons (1xB-17D, 7xB-17E, 2xB-17F, 5xB-24), 7 US Medium Bomber squadrons (2xA-29, 1xB-26, 4xB-25, 1xB-26B)... Plus some Brits to the mix...
I doubt you have enough targets worth for them... or soon wouldn't have...


It certainly is possible to "abuse" the enemy with such force :) And nothing the Japs can field will stop it.
BTW - IRL The US had a single Hvy Bomb Group (with less than 20 combat-ready planes - mix of LB-30, B-17s) and single Medium Bomb group - with a squadron detached to China... IN LATE 1942!

< Message edited by Barb -- 2/8/2016 6:41:17 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 13
RE: Bombers - 2/8/2016 2:52:27 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Mass bombings was not something new; the Germans, the British, were all doing it by 1940.
It was less costly than I anticipated, but still it was not cheap, I lost many bombers in the 1st days. And I sent them in daytime, so not to exploit any night bombing advantage.

And I would argue that by concentrating this big armada in India, I had to leave the Pacific "naked" of heavy bomber support. It took me more than a month to move this using regular transports, then a few weeks to get them ready (service level=5 planes take forever to re-assemble).
Japan could still react by launching an offensive against Suva or Eastern Australia knowing that for their airfields will be safe as any rebalancing would take quite a lot of time.

This is probably the only edge the Allies have over Japan in early war. Japan has all other "aces" until much later on... sow why not use it? you still need to build big airfields in order to achieve anything like this (Calcutta was at level 9). I would also point out that this will only work when there is a big disparity between airfields. a level 9 airbase can easily wipe out a small level 4 or 5... but I would have had a lot more trouble against a level 7 or 8 full of fighters. A lot costlier and bombers are hard to replace.

so yes it is a bit unfair, but it is also unfair that Japan can disembark 6 divisions in 2 days (during early bonus), or that all my surface TFs get massacred by the IJN, I need 3-to-1 or more just to inflict some damage. It is also unfair that Japanese naval bombardment are so effective, ignoring mines and coastal guns.. while there is nothing that can be done until PTs start to come online. The game is unbalanced and that is why it is so amazing.

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/8/2016 4:03:43 PM >

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 14
RE: Bombers - 2/8/2016 7:40:55 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19833
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I followed Jorge's strike at Magwe with interest. He brought alot, and I don't think Japan was fully prepared for the onslaught with prepping the airfield, radar, AA. Japan did allocate a fair number of fighters, but I questioned their defensive settings.

None of that takes away from Jorge's success.

Early on, Rufes can drop 4Es too. You need good pilots (70 in Air an Defense).

In general you also need radar and AA (preferably 10cm or greater), and the proper altitude and settings for your fighters.

A6M,Nicks,Rufe are the best you have in 42 but they will work. As Pax points out, you need cannons and preferably cannons that hit.




(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 15
RE: Bombers - 2/8/2016 11:05:54 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6463
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Maybe a bit of exaggeration .. so no; not 400 heavies.

The biggest early war bombing I have done was 377 bombers in total, only 189 of those were 4-engine of all kinds (Liberators& Fortress)
This was done "early" but assumed as 1942 ... exactly on late October:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3691940&mpage=33&key=

But really no need to have 400 heavy bombers, just the combined effort of 2E and 4E terminated oil production in Magwe... in "one" day of bombing...




As you can see I used pretty much everything available


Was this against the AI or a PBEM, because as you say later you've denuded the rest of the map of significant forces. In late '42 I would think the Japanese player would have quite a 'hot' reception for you at Magwe, assuming it were still operational at that time. IOW, large base protected by radar, AAA, fighters. If he can bring down a significant number of 'heavies' your efforts could be hampered for a long time.

In addition, if he got 'wind' of this massing of air power he could launch a preemptive strike(s) that could be devastating. I'm not sure I would risk this so early against a human opponent. Then again, no guts, no glory.



_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 16
RE: Bombers - 2/8/2016 11:14:39 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
If you are playing a competent Japanese opponent, then you are going to need them all.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 17
RE: Bombers - 2/9/2016 12:16:04 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
Was this against the AI or a PBEM, because as you say later you've denuded the rest of the map of significant forces. In late '42 I would think the Japanese player would have quite a 'hot' reception for you at Magwe, assuming it were still operational at that time. IOW, large base protected by radar, AAA, fighters. If he can bring down a significant number of 'heavies' your efforts could be hampered for a long time.

In addition, if he got 'wind' of this massing of air power he could launch a preemptive strike(s) that could be devastating. I'm not sure I would risk this so early against a human opponent. Then again, no guts, no glory.




This is my PBEM.

Denuded is relative; the Pacific is a naval theatre, and I still have all the USN and Marines squadrons there, plus all Australian and several USAAF 2Es. These are not great assets against airfields, but they can do lots of damage to surface forces, even the KB. so not great offensively, but they can bite defensively
Magwe was relatively well protected, AFAIK it had AA and radars, plus several dozen fighter. but these were all machine gun fighters (Tojo). There was also a big altitude gap on the 1st attack (the one that close the airfield), basically the CAP was optimized against sweeps (high altitude) and I hit low.

And yes, a preemtive strike can help. problem is that this would be temporarily at most, bombers were based on Madras and Hyderabad until the airbase was ready.. before that, I only had fighters doing CAP at Calcutta.
PTs also were a godsend... no more naval bombardments after a few "dances". Ideally you build a land-only airbase

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 2/9/2016 2:06:37 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 18
RE: Bombers - 2/9/2016 12:50:41 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15483
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online
It is easy in this game to miss a detail like doing a rollover on a base that you know has fighters, so you don't realize the base just loaded up with bombers for a strike next turn. Can't bring myself to say a player is incompetent for getting surprised on that unexpected move by Jorge!

It's like in the movie The Big Short - there were likely signs out there that HBs were leaving other theatres and maybe an Intel hint somewhere, but unless you were really looking you would be blissfully unaware of the approaching disaster.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 19
RE: Bombers - 2/9/2016 1:49:41 AM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4228
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Mass bombings was not something new; the Germans, the British, were all doing it by 1940.
It was less costly than I anticipated, but still it was not cheap, I lost many bombers in the 1st days. And I sent them in daytime, so not to exploit any night bombing advantage.

And I would argue that by concentrating this big armada in India, I had to leave the Pacific "naked" of heavy bomber support. It took me more than a month to move this using regular transports, then a few weeks to get them ready (service level=5 planes take forever to re-assemble).
Japan could still react by launching an offensive against Suva or Eastern Australia knowing that for their airfields will be safe as any rebalancing would take quite a lot of time.

This is probably the only edge the Allies have over Japan in early war. Japan has all other "aces" until much later on... sow why not use it? you still need to build big airfields in order to achieve anything like this (Calcutta was at level 9). I would also point out that this will only work when there is a big disparity between airfields. a level 9 airbase can easily wipe out a small level 4 or 5... but I would have had a lot more trouble against a level 7 or 8 full of fighters. A lot costlier and bombers are hard to replace.

so yes it is a bit unfair, but it is also unfair that Japan can disembark 6 divisions in 2 days (during early bonus), or that all my surface TFs get massacred by the IJN, I need 3-to-1 or more just to inflict some damage. It is also unfair that Japanese naval bombardment are so effective, ignoring mines and coastal guns.. while there is nothing that can be done until PTs start to come online. The game is unbalanced and that is why it is so amazing.


*like

Too many games try to be fair and balanced.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 20
RE: Bombers - 2/9/2016 3:00:14 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19833
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The Allies can pack a base in 42 with enough AA that makes bombing it pointless....thus protecting your bombers, and not really having to fly CAP to protect the base either.

OTOH, Japan's 8cm tubes will down a 4E Allied beastie every now and then if you keep the altitude at 10K or higher. This necessitates a combined approach to base defense for the Empire and deep thought about where you place your 10cm AA early on.

I believe elsewhere, Pax mentioned that you need 300-400 fighters at Magwe to defend it along with radar and AA. That gives you enough planes to weather the sweeps, and engage the bombers. I have found this to be very true.

That is 10 fighter sentais! But then again how much is that oil worth?

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 21
RE: Bombers - 2/9/2016 9:38:03 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6463
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
There's an easier way. Push the Allies back in NE India.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 22
RE: Bombers - 2/10/2016 1:01:46 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9449
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I believe elsewhere, Pax mentioned that you need 300-400 fighters at Magwe to defend it along with radar and AA. That gives you enough planes to weather the sweeps, and engage the bombers. I have found this to be very true.

That is 10 fighter sentais! But then again how much is that oil worth?


Well, 6 - 8 IJA groups (if they are 49 ac groups which you really want for this). 10 if you can is even better as it makes it easier to rotate them out down to Rangoon for RnR.
But yes, it is a lot. Besides protecting your oil, you are training up pilots like crazy doing this and stalling the allied advance. Even though you would think most allied players could see this and avoid it, it is amazing how many AAR's end up in this for weeks, if not months during a game.



< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/10/2016 2:02:53 AM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 23
RE: Bombers - 2/10/2016 8:06:43 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2502
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
10 Fighter Sentais? In Scenario 1 Game?
(Counting my own Army Sentais Available from memory - some have 42, most 36 and few 27 planes max)
IIRC - In Feb 1943 I had about 13-14 Unrestricted Army Fighter/Fighter-Bomber Sentais in total... plus few little Detachments/I.F.Chutais around. Not counting "training" Sentais in Japan, Manchukuo and China:

1st Sentai - Unrestricted - Oscar
4th Sentai - Japan (R) - bought - Nicks
5th Sentai - Japan (R) - Nate
9th Sentai - China (R) - Nate
11th Sentai - Unrestricted - Oscar
13th Sentai - Unrestricted - Nicks
21st Sentai - Unrestricted - Nicks
24th Sentai - China (R) - Oscar
25th Sentai (10th I.F. Chutai) - China (R) - - Oscar
26th Sentai - about to arrive iirc
33rd Sentai - China (R) - bought - Oscar
47th I.F. Chutai - Unrestricted - Tojo
50th Sentai - Unrestricted - Oscar
54th Sentai - China (R) - Oscar
59th Sentai - Unrestricted - Oscar
64th Sentai - Unrestricted - Oscar
68th Sentai - Manchukuo (R) - bought - Tony
70th Sentai - Manchukuo (R) - Nate
77th Sentai - Unrestricted - Nate
78th Sentai - Manchukuo (R) - bought - Tony
85th Sentai - Manchukuo (R) - bought - Tojo
87th Sentai - Manchukuo (R) - bought - Tojo
203rd Sentai - Japan (R) - Nate
204th Sentai - Japan (R) - Nate
244th Sentai - Japan (R) - Nate
246th Sentai - Japan (R) - Nate
248th Sentai - Japan (R) - Nate

No wonder majority of games degenerate into "Who brings bigger club" if one has to use 75% of his Army fighter strength at one base to defend against 80% US heavy bomber units (4 of 7th, 90th, 43rd, 5th, 11th BGs) and 50% US medium bomber units (2 of 3rd, 22nd, 38th, 341st) available on map...


< Message edited by Barb -- 2/10/2016 9:27:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 24
RE: Bombers - 2/10/2016 11:34:18 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9449
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Not counting "training" Sentais in Japan, Manchukuo and China

These have to be sifted through and the ones that can, bought out just like the LCU's. Fighters are a priority for me ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
No wonder majority of games degenerate into "Who brings bigger club" if one has to use 75% of his Army fighter strength at one base to defend against 80% US heavy bomber units (4 of 7th, 90th, 43rd, 5th, 11th BGs) and 50% US medium bomber units (2 of 3rd, 22nd, 38th, 341st) available on map...


Yep. It's not the only counter, but it is an effective one.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/10/2016 12:35:27 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 25
RE: Bombers - 2/10/2016 11:36:24 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I believe elsewhere, Pax mentioned that you need 300-400 fighters at Magwe to defend it along with radar and AA. That gives you enough planes to weather the sweeps, and engage the bombers. I have found this to be very true.

That is 10 fighter sentais! But then again how much is that oil worth?


Well, 6 - 8 IJA groups (if they are 49 ac groups which you really want for this). 10 if you can is even better as it makes it easier to rotate them out down to Rangoon for RnR.
But yes, it is a lot. Besides protecting your oil, you are training up pilots like crazy doing this and stalling the allied advance. Even though you would think most allied players could see this and avoid it, it is amazing how many AAR's end up in this for weeks, if not months during a game.





If you do that... then I will bomb Rangoon's port instead... you keep the oil... but far, far away from Japan

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 26
RE: Bombers - 2/10/2016 2:48:25 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1809
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The problem (for Japan) is that during early war it lacks a good interceptor plane. Only two models have a chance:

- A6M Zero is too feeble. No armor, low durability; each interception will cost significant losses.
- Ki-45a is not a dogfighter. so the preceding sweeps will take care of them easily.

Oscars, Tojos, etc are completely inadequate.





My experience is as follows. Lets assume the pilots are decent and have good morale and the fatigue is not overboard...

Zero can down 4E (I am talking about B17E or F, not D) but it will take them some losses esp. ops ones. The one or other is shot down. The 20mm guns are I assume ok, but maybe not accurate enough. Other problem speed. I had 4E (without escort) blast through a carrier CAP of ca. 40-50 A6M2s. The "combat" lasted 20 secs or so then they were over the fleet. Even scored one hit on one of the CVs (only light sys damage).

Oscar, same as above but worse. They still can damage them if they press the attack.

Tojo (with 2 LMG + 2 HMG), basically the same problem but they do better. Reason is better speed and a bit better dur. They press the attack more often then above 2, but also too light guns/no cannon

Nick only few groups can take these, but they are the best vs. bombers. Due to scarcity of them had mostly seen them vs. 2Es. But Mitchel will get downed a lot (and all 3 above tpyes als have probs with Mitchels)..


I believe the Zero would be better if they would press the attack more and do not break off combat so easily. I am sure the pilots have thoughts on their own in this game, so will not go simply "Banzai". At least not in the early phase. They are used to dogfighting in China and vs. Buffaloes in Burma, but not going against monsters Also they do not like the later Allied tactic of zoom and boom with their faster fighters. They think if the US doesnt want to dogfight them they are cowards. However sadly for them the tactic worked...

Sure the Allies do not get many B17s at all. But therefore a lot of B24s and you know what later in the war :( I wonder still if they ever run out as I see a lot of B17 still in 9/1942. But this is AI, it does not withdraw any units so has a bit more stuff at all. Therefore it does not concentrate often like a human would.


< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2016 3:54:52 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 27
RE: Bombers - 2/10/2016 3:15:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19833
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

If you do that... then I will bomb Rangoon's port instead... you keep the oil... but far, far away from Japan



That is where the Nicks are generally speaking. Especially if it is out of fighter sweep range.

Unfortunately, this game does come down to the bigger stick occasionally. Allies generally butt heads against a wall and go around with their bigger sticks.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/10/2016 4:16:32 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 28
RE: Bombers - 2/11/2016 7:57:32 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4152
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
That is the side-effect of universal supply the Allies enjoy in WITP:AE. Just move all US 2E and 4E bombers to India, and the fuel, spare parts, bombs and replacement aircraft will be manufactured by the working poor of Calutta. No need to ship anything to India from USA.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 29
RE: Bombers - 2/11/2016 8:50:58 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I don't think India is self sufficient; I still send quite a lot of supply convoys from CT to Bombay

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Bombers Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.211