Posts made by Flying Tiger

@hyogoetophile:

I agree that basically you want to strat bomb if you can afford to at least send about twice as many escorts as there will be interceptors – and if you want to trade fighters for fighters. And yes, the old guideline seems to apply: If there’s a real battle, you probably want to be in that instead.

Exactly what I am saying. At least someone has math skills. So what is the point of it then? It would be moronic to attack against defending fighters. It’s very comparable to using only infantry to attack infantry, practically #1 on the no no list. So basically this will reduce the amount of SBRs which will reduce the game experience.

@Brain:

The reason that the statistics are in your favor is because most of the SBR’s were done when their was a lack of fighter to intercept the bombing raids.

So based on that you want a rule that applies the odds of what happens with no defense to apply when their is defense. Sorry but that is not realistic.

Over 40,000 Allied aircraft were lost over Europe and you say the Germans had no defense? Farmers with shotguns maybe? The old rules work just fine. IDK but when I see the bomber unit I think a group of bombers escorted by fighters already. When I see the AA gun I think AA fire and interceptor planes. I think these new rules would apply better to DDay or BOTB. I realize I am in the minority on this But I feel it’s going to reduce SBRs on factories too much, when in fact it was a huge part of the war effort.

@Razor:

I dont know why I keep bother answering this questions, butt here we go:

Dear mr. F. Tiger.

We the community want escort and interceptors because it is cool to send em up.
And they used them in the real war too.
So they pretty much belong in an advanced game in this scale. In AA42 the basic game they dont.

And guess what. Back in 1940 they said the same as you. It didn’t pay off to SBR Germany as long as they got a lot of fighters to intercept. Butt after 1944, when the Germans were short on fighters, then it was good business to SBR Germany. Get it ?

Sounds like we agree completely. If there are defending fighters then there is no point to do a SBR. If there are none then you simply go in with only Bombers and the old rules apply.

The new rules favor the defender too much. If you look at the statistics I am right. The #s I have seen show that when the Allies were bombing there was only a 1.2% chance of being shot down (that’s per sortie). Here in my example it stands at 33% for each defending fighter. Too much power since SBRs are not overpowered unless going in with mass bombers and even then it’s limited to 20 points of damage.

Let’s look at a typical scenerio. 1 escort, 1 bomber attacking 1 defending fighter and 1 AA gun.

The odds say that the escort will hit 1/6 so on average you will do 1.66 ipc damage(kill defender 1/6 of time)
The odds say your bomber will do 3.5 ipc damage.
Total average of 5.16 ipc damage.

The odds say the defending fighter will do 3.33 ipc damage( kill escort 1/3 of time)
The odds say the AA gun will do an average of 2ipc damage. (kill bomber 1/6 of time)
Total average of 5.33 ipc damage.

You lose when you do SBR. Of course if you have a larger # of escorts then it becomes in your favor…slightly. But really wouldn’t your efforts be wasted? The smart move is to use your fighters on another target if you got extra fighters to spare anyway.  So what is the point?

The old rules show that you would win with 1 bomber vs 1 AA gun. 3.5 to 2. It’s simple math guys. You think it’s better because it sounds cool to send up interceptors. Not really. But what do I know.

Great question Razor. +1

@Omega:

but escorts are not affected by AA (I haven’t read the rules to be honest, waiting for the game)

so if the other player send ALOT of plane to protect the bombers, are you going to try to put up a fight? Germany can’t hold all her planes in Germany… They are needed against Russia, to defend France (I’m assuming that Germany will only keep inf + fig stack in France)

You know, the Fig escort/interceptor thing could become another battleground. A country like USA could be busy building up a fleet. Meanwhile, he could send bombers + fig to SBR Europe. Even if defending interceptor hit better, if the attacker has a large amount of escort, this can become very tricky. Does Germany want to risk losing fighter in the defense of his IC?

Of course, its all theorical. Will need to play some game before being able to put up any conclusions on whether it is good or not

My point is if you lose even 1 escort fighter the SBR was a loss IPC wise to you. With Defenders rolling a 2 for a hit that is too much risk. Unless of course you are throwing double the amount of escort fighters against the defending fighters then the odds are even because you can now destroy a 10ipc fighter as well. But lets face it you are not going to be wasting valuable fighter planes on a less valuable SBR when you can you can use it for more valuble missions destroying units during regular combat. You get 1 roll per SBR at 1 to hit compared to multiple rolls during regular combat at 3 to hit.

@Brain:

The old rule sucks. It’s practically a free pass to take away your IPC’s

Bombers are a very effective weapon. If you are going to bomb an industrial site you are going to do some damage. The Antiaircraft and defending fighter planes will never take out all the bombers. A bomber in this game represents a large amount of aircraft. Besides that “free pass” does very little damage unless we are talking about 4 or more bombers.

Am I really the only one here that thinks this new system is completely unrealistic. It was only added for more complexity to appease the diehards. I think the AA gun represents both the fighter defenses and the AA fire very well. I don’t have to see a fighter going after a bomber to feel like it is more real. This new system does make the risk outweigh the reward. I would love to see someone do an SBR on me if I have a couple fighters with my complex.

I don’t like the escort rules. All you need is the old rules where the AA gun fires at each plane and that is it.

Take the previous example. 2 defending fighters, 3 escorts and 2 bombers. On average the bombers will do 3.5 damage each. So if the defending fighters just get 1 hit you lose a 10ipc fighter in exchange for 7 damage points which can repair the damage for 7 ipcs. On top of that the AA guns get a chance again to shoot down your bombers. No, this is a very very flawed system. It is completely unnecessary, and IMO a SBR is like playing Blackjack at the casino….the house always has the advantage. I will play without the escort rules and use only AA guns.

@Twigley:

I found these figures on Wikipedia. I couldn’t find any info elsewhere about the US Pacific Fleet strength at the time - but the Japan figures tally well with those also quoted in the Oxford Companion to WWII.

IJN/US Pacific Fleet at time of Pearl Harbor Attack in December 1941:

Battleships: Japan -10…… USA - 9
Aircraft Carriers: Japan - 6 heavy and 4 light… USA - 3
Heavy cruisers Japan - 18…USA - 12
Light cruisers Japan - 20… USA - 8
Destroyers Japan - 108… USA- 50
Fleet submarines Japan - 68… 33
Midget submarines - 50… USA n/a

Additionally I found that Japan had…
90 patrol ships, gunboats, armed merchantships, and submarine chasers
6 minelayers
Itsukushima
42 minesweepers
55 auxiliaries

So it seems that Japan did have parity with the US in terms of battleships - which was wiped temporarily by the Pearl Harbour attack. She did have about 3 times as many carriers (as in the 41 set up)

The rest doesn’t work so well - as in the US has twice as many destroyers as Japan (2) in the 41 set up and the US has not cruisers to start whereas they had two thirds the number of cruiser (total=30) as destroyers (50).

Finally - we can ask how well does Japan’s round 1 sweep of the board reflect the actual damage to US fighting ability from Jan 1942 onwards:

4 battleships sunk,
4 battleships damaged including 1 run aground
2 destroyers sunk, 1 damaged
1 other ship sunk, 3 damaged
3 cruisers damaged

So we see that 80% of the Battleships were put out of action for some time. Destroyer casualties amounted to 1.5% of the available total. Cruiser casualties to 10% of those available.

Note that only (I think) 3 US ships were total write offs. So overall the amazing success of Japan in Round 1 in AA50-41 is a great exaggeration on the actual damage done. Nonetheless - it is clear that Japan did have a significant quantative and qualitative advantage in 1941. Of course over the course of the war - both of these advantages were eroded and eventually overturned.

Great info. I guess you could say that an extra Cruiser for the US would be equivalent to what remained of the BBs after PH. With this information the real error in AA50 is the American economy. AAP got it right….what is it, something like 70 ipcs for USA to 17 for Japan and the starting setup ratio wise looks similiar between AAP and AA50.

So IMO…
1. The US needs a larger income.
2. There needs to be something built into the game to make the US fight in the pacific so as there is not too large an American force crushing Europe.
3. The US needs a small addition to the starting navy.

I think you fix issue 1 and 2 with larger NOs in the Pacific for the US. Adding the Cruiser also fixes issue 3(to be placed at WUSA). This cruiser needs to be on the board after J1 attacks so either you would need to add a DD to hawaii to make the Japanese commit all out to PH or you would need to remove a fighter from the  carrier group attacking
PH and place it in Japan maybe.

If my math is not wrong I calculate the starting navy values to be
USA 87
Japan 137

Not including fighters.

Was the Japanese navy that much larger compared to the US?
45 ipcs of that is sunk in the 1st round. Was half of US navy destroyed in the 1st couple of months of the war? I’m being sarcastic. Question for the history buffs here, just how far off are these values, in your opinion???

@critmonster:

Or give them 3 NO’s based upon island pairs and the “homeland” NO including Alaska. This keeps the big payoff from being all or nothing and allows for strategic island hopping from both powers (Japan’s NO cash should also be based away from the mainland primarily)

How about 10ipcs for homeland, EUSA, CUSA, WUSA, Hawaii, Alaska

10ipcs for 2 of the 3 Wake, Midway, Solomans

5 ipcs for Philippines

I realize that is 25 ipcs in NOs but America had a huge economy compared to others and the game does not reflect that. Like others said if USA has Philippines the game is likely over anyway.

@critmonster:

I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).

Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.

Last few posts are very good.

If the game is going to be re-released then I hope WOTC, Larry Harris and the original playtesters realize the errors in the Pacific and fix them.

Europe looks fine to me.

@Lynxes:

Back to the topic!! I think the NOs do something to encourage a Pacific conflict, what’s wrong is the set-up which is skewed towards the Japanese. They just have so many units compared to the Allies that it’s often not worth to try and fight them. AA50 did strengthen the US fleet somewhat, but they gave the Japanese 9 fighters and 5 transports which is too much.

So, back to the idea of bids being placed in China or on TTs or sz:s bordering Japanese at-start units. Would a bid of say 4 inf in Yunnan and 1 Destroyer at the West coast make the game more like it was meant to be from the start?

An extra DD at WUSA will deter nothing. I would still throw 2 fighters at it and a DD and 2 fighters at Pearl Harbor. The outcome is the same.

I think for history sake the PH attack must happen. The Japanese did not attack any US warships just off the western coast. That is why I would be for a DD at PH and a Cruiser at WUSA. A DD at PH changes nothing except it makes the Japanese attack it with more than 2 fighters and a DD. This eliminates the WUSA attack. I am for historical accuracy in the 1st round after that though it’s anyones game and anyones stategy.

I seriously cannot believe the playtesters allowed the Japanese to sink both fleets at PH and WUSA. It’s a no brainer with the setup as is. Pathetic actually.

Let’s refresh…With my setup the Japanese will have to throw 4 fighters and the DD at PH, losing the DD . If they try to throw 2 fighters and a DD at it they may lose. Maybe they throw 3 fighters at it and win but then what do they do with the 4th fighter? Attack a DD and a Cruiser? I don’t think so.

Japan because it’s as if a modern day army/navy was brought back through time and is virtually unstopable. I’m surprised Japan didn’t come with Cruise missiles and M1 Abrams tanks.

@Adlertag:

@Krieghund:

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.

Oh my God, is this a beer & pretzl -game with plastic toy soldiers, or is it some super secret military prosject ?

LMAO, thanks for that Adlertag.

Krieghund, I can only assume the playtesters forgot about the battle of Midway, Guadalcanal, The taking of The Philippines, Iwo Jima, because none of this shit is happening in my games. If they wanted a European war why didn’t they just make one and call it “Alternative history: The really really huge war in Europe”? You could ask Harry Turtledove for tips.

@critmonster:

only if you want to see Japan roll over everything. The USA needs to engage and battle Japan in the Pacific or they just get to far out of hand.

This is JMO but I think you can let Japan roam free for a few rounds. If they are going to Alaska the USA needs to build some land units to slow them down. But I don’t think it hurts the USAs focus in Africa or Europe enough. If Japan is going hard against Alaska they aren’t going hard into China, Russia or SE Asia. I believe going to Alaska is a big mistake for Japan. It wastes alot of time and valuable units that could be taking all of Asia. You can let them roam while you destroy Germany and Italy, after that it doesn’t matter how big Japan is they will go down against 3 allies. JMO though.

I do agree that NO’s need to be pacific focused (perhaps more lucrative for USA as well) and Japans NO needs to be Australia not India (which they would take anyway).
As far as your idea, I am not “shooting it down” so to speak,but how do you balance an extra $26 in allied units? Do you think no additional axis incentives are needed?

The whole idea behind it is that now the USA has a large NO that is very much in their interest to acquire. It is close to WUSA and if they have ships in the area of Midway, Wake Alaska or Hawaii to defend this NO that means that they also have other options in the Pacific like the high value islands. With the inflated Japanese navy the extra ships the USA get are more true to historical values. Hell it probably ought to be an extra BB in WUSA instead of a Cruiser. I want a more historical war where the USA fights in both theatres. This extra incentive to fight in the pacific WILL TAKE PRESSURE OFF OF A KGIF STRATEGY. This IMO balances the game better. A KGIF strategy will win for the allies more times than not.

@critmonster:

@Flying:

My fix would be….

Put 2 extra chinese infantry with the flying tigers to help it survive 1st round.

Put extra US DD at Hawaii. This will make it a juicer target and you are going to have to throw more than 2 fighters and a DD at it to kill it.

Put extra Cruiser at WUSA. This deters any attack here if you want to kill the BB and beefs up the post PH attack American navy to a reasonable level.

American NOs changed to only 2…(France and home territory NO deleted)
Receive 15 ipcs if Allies control 3 of the four following territories…Hawaii, Alaska, Midway, Wake island

Receive 5 ipcs if allies control the Phillipines

so a bid of $26 for the USA/China?!? seems a bit extreme

Not a bid, a FIX. The US must fight in pacific or it isn’t WW2. You may as well call it the great european war as it stands now.

My fix would be….

Put 2 extra chinese infantry with the flying tigers to help it survive 1st round.

Put extra US DD at Hawaii. This will make it a juicer target and you are going to have to throw more than 2 fighters and a DD at it to kill it.

Put extra Cruiser at WUSA. This deters any attack here if you want to kill the BB and beefs up the post PH attack American navy to a reasonable level.

American NOs changed to only 2…(France and home territory NO deleted)
Receive 15 ipcs if Allies control 3 of the four following territories…Hawaii, Alaska, Midway, Wake island

Receive 5 ipcs if allies control the Phillipines

@General:

Personally… I would love the game to be historically viable… IE a true war in the pacific and Germany/Italy vs UK/USA.  I think shifting all NO’s for America into the pacific and beefing her up a bit to enable her to fight a war on 2 fronts would help to achieve this.  Just leave the France NO for the brits.  Improve China to deter the Japanese from attacking Russia, and finally beef up Italy so the European axis does not rely on Japan.

Reading the forums leaves me to believe that no one else cares about this but me and you. Everyone wants to bid and put it in Africa. If anything should change it is the pacific. This game is good but it could be great. If the game came OOB the way you just described there would be no one saying that there are flaws like they are now.