|
algebra testes posted:This has probably been asked before, but when Germany Surrenders does the US get all the European Inf Divs that were earmarked for Japan? Yes, everyone gets the units earmarked for Japan.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:Do the Japanese even do the whole "have veterans train the new guys" thing? Yes, but it requires a lot more micromanagement on the part of the Japanese player.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:This has probably been asked before, but when Germany Surrenders does the US get all the European Inf Divs that were earmarked for Japan? You get literally anything that historically would have been in theatre...so everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
There should totally be a Greyverse mod where the Soviets deactivate by 1943 because they've been defeated by General Graujager and you get German Panzer Divisions coming through the Siberian Railway for the IJA's use in-theater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:You get literally anything that historically would have been in theatre...so everything. Apparently among the nastier things is a flood of B-17s fresh from bombing Berlin. The air war already sucks by that point but those really bring on the pain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Velius posted:Apparently among the nastier things is a flood of B-17s fresh from bombing Berlin. The air war already sucks by that point but those really bring on the pain. You get the entirety of the 8th air force I think. Along with a bunch of RAF and RCAF Lancasters and Halifaxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Caconym posted:You get the entirety of the 8th air force I think. Along with a bunch of RAF and RCAF Lancasters and Halifaxes. Yes, starting in Aug 45. You only get Lincolns and Lancasters from the RAF, and they all show up in Canada. Similarly, everything the US gets from Europe shows up in Eastern USA first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
What is the in game result of invading Japan? Lots of dead troops?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Weren't irl b17s next to useless in bombing targets less than cities?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Weren't irl b17s next to useless in bombing targets less than cities? There are a lot of cities in Japan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Weren't irl b17s next to useless in bombing targets less than cities? The Panzer Lehr Division might have something to say about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There are a lot of cities in Japan. That were only reachable with the b-29. The problem with the b17 iirc is that it couldn't hit poo poo at high altitudes and wasn't as good as the b-24 at lower altitudes. It was a lousy bomber that's famous because a poo poo ton got built and thousands of men got sent to their deaths senselessly to drop bombs within a 1/2 mile circle of a train depot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:What is the in game result of invading Japan? Lots of dead troops? The Japanese don't get the same kind of free armies that the US does (if there's a Japanese landing on the mainland US, Patton and the third army spawn to kill it) so the Japanese player would have to move a bunch of his armies to defend VPs and his critical industry. It would be game over really fast if he lost enough of that, and the US has powerful armies that the Japanese have to stop in the naval part of the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That were only reachable with the b-29. Wait, what? Really? Or is this just a WWII hot take?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Wait, what? Really? Or is this just a WWII hot take? I warmed it up a bit but yeah. The effect of level bombing is vastly overstated until they started firebombing cities. The narrative was controlled by the Air Force in the post war because they held the means to deliver nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
   We lose some more planes, but get some good hits in.   Its murder out there.  I'm up for more carrier fun!  Lets see how many ships we can get this time.   That's a lot of planes lost.  Three more kills!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I warmed it up a bit but yeah. The effect of level bombing is vastly overstated until they started firebombing cities. The narrative was controlled by the Air Force in the post war because they held the means to deliver nuclear weapons. We've had some enormous conversations about this over on milhist, I made a big effort post about early war bombing, I think in the current iteration of the thread. Will try and find it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:The Japanese don't get the same kind of free armies that the US does (if there's a Japanese landing on the mainland US, Patton and the third army spawn to kill it) so the Japanese player would have to move a bunch of his armies to defend VPs and his critical industry. It would be game over really fast if he lost enough of that, and the US has powerful armies that the Japanese have to stop in the naval part of the war. Unless I'm mistaken the Japanese do get free "Depot Divisions" if the US lands on the home islands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
The big problem is supply. In essence supply represents abstracted stuff including aviation fuel and bullets, and for the Japanese supply is ultimately a very limited resource. You need oil to make supply and usually by '44 the oil has stopped so whatever is left is all you get. Supply gets burned by fighting, (re)building airfields and forts, repairing disabled squads, destroyed squads, building factories, all sorts of things. Once the supply dries up Japan, even if it has a million troops on the HI, can't do poo poo to the allies because their planes won't fly anymore and they lose all antitank firepower. Supply ends up being the endgame resource for Japan, and why even the most spirited defense falls in the end. This matters a lot because of the crazy economic model of the game. It's really easy for a Japanese player to build a ton of extra factories and have thousands of extra planes in the middle of the war. Then they run out of supply and the game is over. There are mods just to account for the insane Japanese economic model to make it a bit less obtuse. Velius fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:What is the in game result of invading Japan? Lots of dead troops? Yes. The game includes a "Downfall" scenario where they explain that atomic bomb development failed, so you have to invade Japan. I think it starts in summer 1945. It's a ton of fun, trying to make an amphibious landing while fending off hundreds of kamikazes - you have to bring many, many carriers along with you to do that. Once you're on land it's a bit of a slog, as much of the Japanese terrain is well suited to defense, but as the Americans you have effectively unlimited supply and reinforcements, as long as you can get them there you are good. Once you take a few cities it gets easier and the VPs start tilting wildly in your favor, as the value of mainlaind Japanese cities in Allied hands is very, very high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That were only reachable with the b-29. Was it inferior at shooting down fighters too? I don't know about other bombers, but they kill a whole wad before going down in that old simulator game (the hard copy one, don't know if the computer game was a faithful reproduction). How hard will it be for Grey to kill all the Essexes if they only sally out in twos and threes? RA Rx fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Wouldn't the accuracy of a bomber be more about the bombsight and unrelated to the plane itself?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
pthighs posted:Wouldn't the accuracy of a bomber be more about the bombsight and unrelated to the plane itself? Bombsights are basically way too precise for what normal atmospheric conditions are. The Norden bombsight would allow you to land a bomb in a cardboard box but only in 1 out of a 100 days in the desert with zero wind or temperature inversions ground to 10,000 ft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
The qualifiers I would put on B-17s and the strategic bombing of Germany is that: 1. for quite some time they were using the Javelin Down formation rather than the box formation, which made them less capable of mutual fire support than a box formation 2. for quite some time they were flying into France and Germany unescorted 3. for quite some time they were wasting bombs trying to hit U-boat pens Now, the argument that supports the Anglo-American bombing campaign regardless of these failings is that A. they drew off an alleged million-or-so men into Western Europe to man AA batteries and fighter squadrons that would otherwise have seen action in the Eastern Front, and B. the depletion of the Luftwaffe in the efforts to fight-off the bombers paved the way for complete air superiority come D-Day. But they definitely could have done a lot more and lost a lot less, with the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Bombsights are basically way too precise for what normal atmospheric conditions are. The Norden bombsight would allow you to land a bomb in a cardboard box but only in 1 out of a 100 days in the desert with zero wind or temperature inversions ground to 10,000 ft. The true irony is that RCA wanted to build a TV-guided bomb at the start of the war. If the money (a tenth of the money) wasted on the Norden sight had been directed to that, the 8th Air Force could have been bombing Germany with PGMs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The true irony is that RCA wanted to build a TV-guided bomb at the start of the war. If the money (a tenth of the money) wasted on the Norden sight had been directed to that, the 8th Air Force could have been bombing Germany with PGMs. PGMs? You mean Pigeon Guided Munitions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
I assume precision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That were only reachable with the b-29. Compared to the B-17, the B-24 was faster, could carry more, and could fly father, sure. But you can't forget that the B-17 was a hell of a lot more durable than the Liberator, and could survive ferocious punishment compared to other aircraft. There's a reason they kept making them alongside Liberators, and why they were retained in service in specialized roles for over a decade after the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:How hard will it be for Grey to kill all the Essexes if they only sally out in twos and threes? Hard. Carrier ops have an element of mutually assured destruction, where unless you really get the drop on someone, their strike aircraft are going to be heading for you as well. Every time we engage their carriers, there's a chance their strike/counter strike will get through, and we can't even afford to trade ships 1:1. At this rate, we're already starting to see a decline in the quality of our air groups, so the odds of us fending off their strikes get lower and lower. At some point, even if we kill off their carriers in ones and twos, we'll have fewer and fewer carriers, which in turn means less CAP and alpha strike to quickly decide carrier battles. The vicious cycle will run its course. Death is certain 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Pft, we will just crush all their silly flat boats with our glorious imperial battleships
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Flavius Belisarius posted:I assume precision. You can't just assume precision, you have to painstakingly train the pigeons!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Compared to the B-17, the B-24 was faster, could carry more, and could fly father, sure. But you can't forget that the B-17 was a hell of a lot more durable than the Liberator, and could survive ferocious punishment compared to other aircraft. There's a reason they kept making them alongside Liberators, and why they were retained in service in specialized roles for over a decade after the war. noooot really, it was more the fact that if you already have a line entirely tooled for B-17 production, it does not make sense to redo the line to produce a somewhat better bomber. gradenko_2000 posted:The qualifiers I would put on B-17s and the strategic bombing of Germany is that: There might be some benefit in terms of fighter squadrons but AA batteries were to a large degree manned by old dudes, kids, and guys invalided out or on convalescent leave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
   We pick off a troop ship.  Another good hit from a carrier.  Not much fresh meat in the area.  Nooo! Ah well, its armour.  We continue to lose planes in the air.   We send in another wave!  The allies see a base point drop, but it will be back tomorrow.  Unlike this guy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Are you sending the Musashi into Noumea? That can only end poorly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
An expensive waste of precious oil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
22 February 1943 Canadian corvette Weyburn, mined off Cape Spartel at the Straits of Gibraltar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Grey does stuff on purpose. Command of both the Japanese and Allied fleets(and a kid) have driven him insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:22 February 1943 Mines seem to have racked up quite the kill count, but never get any press.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
He's not sending Musashi into Noumea, it's in the same hex as the Kido Butai
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Grumio posted:He's not sending Musashi into Noumea, it's in the same hex as the Kido Butai Noumea's right there and he's going to ram the island and sink it into the Pacific Ocean! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:47
|
|