Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 7/13/2002 12:45:13 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		I think the game makes the assumption that ships disbanded in port get the port AA fire, but ships in a TF actually move away from the port prior to the air raid and thus don't have the huge to hit disadvantage that the ships disbanded have. Yes, this is an abstraction, as not all air raids are known about ahead of time. From the comments, I'm assuming that only the TF's are not getting the port AA fire, which is the way the game is intended to be.

Joel

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 91
okay that makes sense - 7/13/2002 12:59:02 AM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		especially since hexes are what 30 miles? a task force could easily be five miles from shore...

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 92
- 7/13/2002 1:27:42 AM   
Kavik Kang

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/9/2002
Status: offline 		I'm glad too see that the test stats support my instincts. I just wanted to add again that, because players do not consider the lives of the 8-10 man crews of the level bombers, a more realistic end result between human players will only be achieved through compensating for this factor. It would probably be necessary to make bombers take a little more flak at low levels, and have less of an effect on the target, if in the end you want players to voluntarily make the same decision as the real commanders did... not generally attacking fleets at low level due to the great loss in human life suffered when a big bomber goes down. The goal isn't realisim, the goal is to cause the players to think in realistic terms and make realistic decisions.

_____________________________

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 93
- 7/13/2002 1:47:12 AM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kavik Kang
[B]I'm glad too see that the test stats support my instincts. I just wanted to add again that, because players do not consider the lives of the 8-10 man crews of the level bombers, a more realistic end result between human players will only be achieved through compensating for this factor. It would probably be necessary to make bombers take a little more flak at low levels, and have less of an effect on the target, if in the end you want players to voluntarily make the same decision as the real commanders did... not generally attacking fleets at low level due to the great loss in human life suffered when a big bomber goes down. The goal isn't realisim, the goal is to cause the players to think in realistic terms and make realistic decisions. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think that they should also impose penalties agaisnt commanders that engage in ground combat with the enemy since this also leads to great loss of life. And if you think b-17's are bad... those callous bastards to risk whole subs (forty man crews!!) against japanese shipping should litteraly have thier game freeze up and crash windows.


This kind of thinking is quite odd. Ummm I don't really want my wargames to dictate to me morality. Perhaps b-17 crews should suffer from morale penalties if they suffer large numbers of casulties, but the problem is self defeating since large numbers of casulties inevitably remove the squadrons from the rotation.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 94
- 7/13/2002 2:08:43 AM   
Kavik Kang

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/9/2002
Status: offline 		...but that is the real-life reason why commanders did not use level bombers at low-altitude against war fleets. Players don't consider that loss of life and so are willing to use them that way. All I am saying is that the low level flak might need to be more powerful, and the low level attacks have less of an effect than reality, so that the people playing the game make the same decision for the same reason. That's realism through unrealism:-)

The reason, in my view, that it is such an issue is that as a SOPAC war game this is primarily about carriers. Say one side has 50 ships, 4 of which are carriers. 46 of those ships don't matter much if the 4 "special" ones (the carriers) are lost. Because so much of the game rides on so few units, it is very important that those units be relatively protected. This is the true heart of the problem being discussed. The level bombers should be less of a threat to the carriers. Currently they are the primary threat to the carriers, and that is just not right.

_____________________________

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 95
New Idea - 7/13/2002 2:20:40 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		I have a proposal for ending this debate which I'm sure that no one will like. Get rid of "altitude" altogether. As a player I don't want to micro-manage a/c altitude. (Everything else, yes! But not plane altitude). Have all aircraft attack at their historically accurate height and that SHOULD get rid of unrealistic results. If "skip" bombing is important enough to keep in the game, add that as a primary mission for level bombers. (And "strafing" as a mission type for fighters).

Now that we've settled that............

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 96
You seem like a reasonable man kang - 7/13/2002 2:20:49 AM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		but the arguement that the game rests to a great extent on the carieers speaks to why I would risk anything to wreck them. Imagine the lives lost in raids like schiewnfurt or the Romanian Oil Field raids from North Africa that were justified by the prize. Had the Japanese really wandered into range often with thier carriers it might have happened. By the way jap lba is also quite nasty (try rolling two or three USN CVs by an active rabual and see how many torpedoes you suck down for your trouble).

In the actual war I don't believe that Japanese carriers acted near or around places where signficant LBA bomber assets could be directed against them for that precise reason. If the AI or some yahoo wants to roll the Akagi past optimal range of the PM DeathStar, then he gets the alderaan treatment just like the rest.

IMHO...

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 97
Re: You seem like a reasonable man kang - 7/13/2002 2:26:34 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by doomonyou
[B]In the actual war I don't believe that Japanese carriers acted near or around places where signficant LBA bomber assets could be directed against them for that precise reason. If the AI or some yahoo wants to roll the Akagi past optimal range of the PM DeathStar, then he gets the alderaan treatment just like the rest.
IMHO... [/B][/QUOTE]
No good. With B17's, the range of PM is halfway to Truk.
Gotta fix the low-level bombing, or eliminate it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 98
- 7/13/2002 3:16:29 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		I've seen real B-17s manuvering in person at altitudes of approximately 1000 feet. I can tell you they would be more than capable of hitting a carrier. However, they would also take alot of flak. But, if I ordered several airgroups of B-17s to attack a carrier task force at low level, I can guarantee you I would sink those puppies.

The question is as simple as this : flak values against large targets flying at low level in an area that is completely flat (such as the open sea) should be increased somewhat (by about 10-20 percent).

I am aware of Juliet7bravo's testing, and commend it.

However, I don't think it indicates anything except the above.

I say again : there does not appear to be a "target size" variable for AA to Target aircraft fire. This explains the sameness of results versus Medium bombers and B-17s.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 99
Re: Re: You seem like a reasonable man kang - 7/13/2002 3:24:46 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]
No good. With B17's, the range of PM is halfway to Truk.
Gotta fix the low-level bombing, or eliminate it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that because B-17s have a certain range they should be tweaked? Cannot the same argument be made for Bettys?

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 100
Bogey - 7/13/2002 3:32:32 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]
Are you suggesting that because B-17s have a certain range they should be tweaked? Cannot the same argument be made for Bettys? [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm suggesting anything that allows for UNREALISTIC results needs to be FIXED. I'm starting to feel guilty when my 3 B17's fly through 20+ Zeros and flak taking no damage; all the while laying waste to every ship in sight with mutilpe hits from every bomber. I leave it up to those more knowledgable than me to determine what is "realistic".

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 101
- 7/13/2002 3:34:10 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		***B25's***one month***Same test parameters/out of Donadura***

2762 total sorties (much bad weather, time down)
1171 combat sorties (850 ground sorties, 321 naval sorties)
78 flak losses (78 ground, 0 naval)
10 Op losses

1180 ground hits = 138.8% per AC ground sortie
144 naval hits = 44.86% per AC naval sortie (15 ships sunk, 5-7 more that are goners)

323 damaged AC out of 850 ground sorties = 38%
78 destroyed AC out of 850 ground sorties = 9.18%
0 destroyed AC out 321 naval sorties = 0%
14 damaged AC out of 321 naval sorties = 4.36%
10 Operational Losses out 2762 sorties = 0.36%

Statistically, really not much to choose from between the two aircraft, except anything a medium bomber can do, the B-17 does twice as much. Hardly amazing since at the ranges, the B-17 is carrying exactly twice the bomb load, 6 x 500 lb vs. 12 x 500 lb. Results remarkably consistent.

Notice how the B-25 has a slightly higher flak killed rate, and a much lower flak damaged rate. My guess would be that there actually is a discriminator in the target size/peformance of the AC that make the B-17 more vulnerable to flak hits. The B-25 has more killed outright, the B-17's durability allows it to survive more often. If so, there's a "clean fix" right there.

The B-17's success as a ship killer is reflected in the almost 2x hit rate (due to the 2x bomb load)...this is going to be especially important against "hard" naval targets with a higher durability rating. Against "soft" targets, the second hit is often redundant.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 102
- 7/13/2002 3:38:55 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		I see the debate rages on with still no consensus.

In the meantime, Gary and I discussed a change to the repair rates for larger planes. This came from someone's comment on the forum along with a discussion with Gary about how the current system works. The result of this was that Gary made a change to WitP to make Level Bombers take longer to repair, with the greater the bombload, the greater the repair time. Because the formula for repair is not simple, it is almost impossible for us to know the exact impact of this change (repairing a plane reduces the chance of repairing other planes at that base during the same turn, and the chance keeps going down with each repair). All I can say is that it may double the repair times for heavy bombers while increasing the repair times for medium bombers by 10-30%. Gary has sent this change to Mike, but I can't say when and/or if this change will get into a UV patch.

So far the poll results would seem to lean towards making some flak adjustment, but no decision on this has been made. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 103
- 7/13/2002 3:48:24 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		Increased repair time a good thing. (1) it'd be realistic, (2) slow down the sortie rate

Most of the non-weather "downtime" testing was for morale and fatigue, not for AC repairs. The oft quoted "Battle of Bismarck Sea", the B-17 groups used there (at 5000', and to little effect) were combat ineffective for a considerable time afterward.

Ports...I thought there was a AC hit penalty for "docked" ships, as well as "anchored" ships? If not, it's mox nix.

Poll...I haven't "voted". I think it's too complicated and too many variables for an easy "one size fits all" fix. I'm tending toward all flak being understated slightly, and flak against low level bombers considerably. With only 4 AA Bn (more realistic than 6) in Rabaul, the hit/kill percentages drop considerably.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 104
- 7/13/2002 4:03:54 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		"...but that is the real-life reason why commanders did not use level bombers at low-altitude against war fleets."

The real reason why B17s were not primarily used in low level attacks against surface vessels was that most often such vessels were protected by CAP, and, becuase most often that attack profile was better served by some other a/c *by the time it became known that B17s were ineffective at high altitude level bombing vs. ships*. Had B25s, A20s, and B26s not been available, B17s might have been employed more extensively in low level attacks.

"All I am saying is that the low level flak might need to be more powerful.."

Bad idea. That would make flak more effective than in reality. Better to just get your opponent to agree that no more than 1 B17 group can be assigned to skip bombing, ever. Also, what all is wrong with the A/A combat routines that unescorted bombers can't be shot down? Seems like the common complaint is that B17s waltz through Zekes and Betties waltz through F4Fs.

"The reason, in my view, that it is such an issue is that as a SOPAC war game this is primarily about carriers. "

Well, the war in the South Pacific was primarily about controlling critical land masses for the placement of land based air. Remove the LBA from the equation then you've got almost no realism (and, along the way, taken away the Allies most descisive combat advantage).

"Currently they are the primary threat to the carriers, and that is just not right."

Agreed. So probably you should get your opponent to agree that B17s must bomb from >18,000 feet except for the one group that is granted the expertise to skip bomb from 200 feet. That'd give you a historic attack profile. At 200 feet you should see the telling effects of light AAA gein to take its toll on level bombers.

B17s ought to somewhat difficult to replace in the PTO. Bear in mind that USAAF considered B17s special ops weapons designed specifically for strategic bombing, and the vast bulk of them went to the ETO/N. Africa. Spaatz hoarded them for 8th AF and still had a horrid time getting his units up to strength after really devastating missions. As a result, PTO got the *** end of B17 repldepl and spare parts.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 105
- 7/13/2002 4:14:28 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		For those running bombing tests with no CAP, remember that CAP not only shoots down and damages planes, but also causes disruption to the bomber groups. This disruption reduces the hit chance. I don't know the formula involved so I can't say how much it changes things, but it is intended to be a major item in the game system. Disruption also happens to CAP during an air phase, and this is why you often see CAP do little to raids following other raids. The game tries to deal with a lot of these factors, unfortunately it doesn't tell you about the disruption being caused and it's not at all visible to the player.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 106
- 7/13/2002 4:16:04 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]I see the debate rages on with still no consensus.

In the meantime, Gary and I discussed a change to the repair rates for larger planes. This came from someone's comment on the forum along with a discussion with Gary about how the current system works. The result of this was that Gary made a change to WitP to make Level Bombers take longer to repair, with the greater the bombload, the greater the repair time. Because the formula for repair is not simple, it is almost impossible for us to know the exact impact of this change (repairing a plane reduces the chance of repairing other planes at that base during the same turn, and the chance keeps going down with each repair). All I can say is that it may double the repair times for heavy bombers while increasing the repair times for medium bombers by 10-30%. Gary has sent this change to Mike, but I can't say when and/or if this change will get into a UV patch.

So far the poll results would seem to lean towards making some flak adjustment, but no decision on this has been made. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good deal, and LOL!!!

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 107
- 7/13/2002 4:20:36 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]Increased repair time a good thing. (1) it'd be realistic, (2) slow down the sortie rate

Most of the non-weather "downtime" testing was for morale and fatigue, not for AC repairs. The oft quoted "Battle of Bismarck Sea", the B-17 groups used there (at 5000', and to little effect) were combat ineffective for a considerable time afterward.

Ports...I thought there was a AC hit penalty for "docked" ships, as well as "anchored" ships? If not, it's mox nix.

Poll...I haven't "voted". I think it's too complicated and too many variables for an easy "one size fits all" fix. I'm tending toward all flak being understated slightly, and flak against low level bombers considerably. With only 4 AA Bn (more realistic than 6) in Rabaul, the hit/kill percentages drop considerably. [/B][/QUOTE]

Again, I want to caution you and Matrix about a blanket solution to increase AA effectiveness at low levels. AA effectiveness is highest when the following conditions (among others, but the relevant ones for this debate) obtain :

1. The AA gunners have sufficient time to load, aim, and fire.
2. The vector rate of change does is not so great as to thow off aim.
3. Ground clutter does not reduce firing effectiveness.

At ranges of 0 to 1000 feet, ground clutter will significantly reduce AA effectivness. Even in a flat area, trees and so forth will be a problem. At these ranges also, the vector rate of change is very high, reducing the aim accuracy, and time on target tracking of the AA position.

On the Sea, AA effectiveness would be somewhat higher at low levels than for ground based AA because there is no ground clutter.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 108
- 7/13/2002 4:35:36 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]For those running bombing tests with no CAP, remember that CAP not only shoots down and damages planes, but also causes disruption to the bomber groups. This disruption reduces the hit chance. I don't know the formula involved so I can't say how much it changes things, but it is intended to be a major item in the game system. Disruption also happens to CAP during an air phase, and this is why you often see CAP do little to raids following other raids. The game tries to deal with a lot of these factors, unfortunately it doesn't tell you about the disruption being caused and it's not at all visible to the player. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bombing accuracy secondary to the test, and included because the numbers are there. Not seeing any major difference in accuracy between this and "normal" bombing, however. Results pretty well match what I've seen in game in general. I think the land bombing accuracy is just fine, if anything it could be on the low side. No opinion yet against ships.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 109
- 7/13/2002 6:07:54 AM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		I think Flak should be left alone. Instead the following three "bugs" should be fixed (there are four, but #1 already is fixed, at least in WiTP)

1. Heavier planes should take longer to repair. Bombload and armor should both add to repair times. The flak does its job properly, but heavily armored planes are mostly damaged with few destroyed. Since they are all repaired in a day or two, the player feels no disadvantage to using them this way.

2. Ships' chances of being sighted should decrease exponentially with their distance from the base from which the search planes take off. (Unless they are IJN in a coast hex below hexline 30). B17s will sometimes launch from PM and hit carriers around Kavieng. In reality they would likely not have a search plane there to spot the carriers, unless they had previous warning. A squadron of 9-12 PBYs would have trouble searching completely just a 90-mile diameter circle (a cluster of 7 hexes)in one 12-hour day. They seem quite effective at covering the entire area within their extended range, even though this is patently impossible.

3. Since the 1.11 patch and its increased verbalization of dogfights, the tendency for a group of 3 unescorted bombers, whether B-17, Betty or Nell to get through the 20-30+ fighters untouched is easy to spot. There is a bunch of climbing to intercept, diving on bombers, etc., but no shooting. Just a quick Air combat done. If a group of 20 unescorted bombers should attack, then a more realistic figure of about half will be shot down. but this group of 3 almost always gets through, instead of almost always being shot down. Since the computer picks the naval targets, and will send these three types of aircraft unescorted at TFs hundreds of miles away, a more realistic 2-3 bombers destroyed with only an occasional 3 bombers getting through unscathed would have a deterrent reaction on the players. Of course for them to do anything about it, they would have to have number 4 below.

4. Have a switch that disallows unescorted bomber sorties while on Naval attack. All the other missions are target selectable, so you know if you are asking the bombers to do the mission unescorted, but not naval attacks. This would allow a house rule in PBEM games that would keep B-17s and Betties and Nells away from where they would never normally have flown (Kavieng for B-17s, and Cairns for Bettys and Nells.

Well, that's my two cents. With all the others that have been thrown in on this subject, Matrix should be able to afford a company picnic this summer! :D

kp

_____________________________

The Earth is but a hollow nougat, reverberating with the sounds of the big bands... :cool:

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 110
- 7/13/2002 6:18:16 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		The formulas are set up to significantly reduce the chance of a long range airstrike engaging a naval target that is not in a base/beach hex. Anything over 10-15 hexes is much less likely. However, maybe this isn't working to the degree that some would like. I would guess this is happening more to TF's that are hanging around for long periods of time while spotted by the enemy, thus allowing the max detect level to build up (I say guess because I'm not sure about the formulas involved).

Joel

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 111
- 7/13/2002 6:37:05 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		Ok my 2 Yen again.

I orginally liked Dgaad's idea of including a size variable because I thought it would help not only for planes but also ships (the torpedoing of PC and DDs).

However after doing some more research I think the manuverablity rating actually does a pretty decent job of modeling both size and the likelyhood of being hit by a weapon.

Take a B17E and Wildcat F4F.
Length B17E 73' 10" F4F 28' 9"
Wing Area B17 1420 Square feet F4F 260 square feet

Assuming fusalage hits are more likely to be fatal. Based on size alone it looks like a B17 would be about 5 times more likely to be hit by potentially lethal flak than a F4F.

Now lets compare their manuverability ratings. B17 4, F4F 32.
So assuming that there is a linear relationship between manuverability and being hit by flak a B17 is 8 times more likely than a F4F. They are also 4 times more likely than typical medium bomber with a rating of 16.

Now the manuverabilty rating is not perfect since some large planes like P38 has better manuverabilty than many smaller planes. However, it is hard to argue that is really flawed.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 112
- 7/13/2002 7:06:15 AM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]I see the debate rages on with still no consensus.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Joel

You're not really expecting any of the experts here to change their opinion after they express it publically are you? ;)

IMO there will never be a consensus on this issue here. I suggest that Matrix run 1000' level bombing strikes for both sides in a very controlled way, similar to what j7b is doing. Then decide for yourselves if the tactic unbalances the game, or if it produces results that are out of line from what you'd expect, and if flak results are appropriate or not. Then either fix it if it's broken or move on if it isn't.

elmo3

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 113
- 7/13/2002 7:36:39 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B]Ok my 2 Yen again.

I orginally liked Dgaad's idea of including a size variable because I thought it would help not only for planes but also ships (the torpedoing of PC and DDs).

However after doing some more research I think the manuverablity rating actually does a pretty decent job of modeling both size and the likelyhood of being hit by a weapon.

Take a B17E and Wildcat F4F.
Length B17E 73' 10" F4F 28' 9"
Wing Area B17 1420 Square feet F4F 260 square feet

Assuming fusalage hits are more likely to be fatal. Based on size alone it looks like a B17 would be about 5 times more likely to be hit by potentially lethal flak than a F4F.

Now lets compare their manuverability ratings. B17 4, F4F 32.
So assuming that there is a linear relationship between manuverability and being hit by flak a B17 is 8 times more likely than a F4F. They are also 4 times more likely than typical medium bomber with a rating of 16.

Now the manuverabilty rating is not perfect since some large planes like P38 has better manuverabilty than many smaller planes. However, it is hard to argue that is really flawed. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with everything you say here.

My position all along has been if there is NOT a size variable in the target, this would account for the sameness of result controlled for the manuverability ratings.

This, means, however, that if a very small craft had a manuverability rating that was exactly the same as a large craft, the expected AA results would also be the same, and this is incorrect.

I agree that the manuverability ratings probably do a good job of simulating size, but for especially large craft at low level, an additional 10% to effectiveness for AA against large targets would probably make up the last bit of simulation inaccuracy IMHO.

To me, this is a minor problem however, suitable only for diehards.

What the real solution is, IMHO, is an adjustment of tactics to the more conservative side. Why players get upset when they lose a bunch of transports to LBA is beyond me. This was the entire point of the war : Establish an airbase to cut off supply to enemy bases. This was the raison d'etre for the Island Hopping concept. The entire war in the Pacific pivoted strategically on this very issue.

Players tend to play much more aggressively and less conservatively than historical commanders, because they aren't dealing with real lives and real nations. Perhaps this game does so well as a simulation of tactics it would now behoove players to see the wisdom of conservative tactics :

Don't move ANYTHING into LBA range if you can avoid it.
If you can't avoid it, bring along : escort, carriers, flak platforms, etc. Doesn't sound unreasonable or ahistorical to me.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 114
- 7/13/2002 7:39:09 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		"However, maybe this isn't working to the degree that some would like."

Odd you should mention that...I'd just moved the 2 initial IJN CV/CVL TF's down off Buna (but not in a beach/base hex). 2 CV's, 1 CVL, CA's, DD's...both full 10 ship TF's. No aircraft on board, just to test flak. Sat there for a week. The US launched just 4 strikes of B-17's. Strikes totaled a mere 33 AC. Meanwhile, they flew about 250 sorties to Shortland, Rabaul, and Kavieng to attack PG and AP target drones.

CV Strike Results;
7 AC, 0 Destroyed, 7 damaged, 1 hit.
15 AC, 0 Destroyed, 7 damaged, 6 hit.
4 AC, 0 Destroyed, 4 damaged, 1 hit.
7 AC, 1* Destroyed, 6 damaged, 4 hit.
*NOTE: first naval flak kill

12 naval hits = 36.4% per AC
1 destroyed AC out 33 naval sorties = 3%
24 damaged AC out of 33 naval sorties = 72.7%

The AC were initially set at "training 0", with 2 squadrons of Lightnings on Naval Search 100% until the carriers were on station off Buna. 6 x 12 B-17, 75 exp/100 morale, fully supplied, over 500 Av support, Air HQ present. Orders Naval Attack/Rest, 1000'.

The B-17's were flying over 2 CV's and a CVL right next door to attack PG's 2-3 times further away. No carrier CAP. The carriers sat there unmoving for a week. 4 days out of 7 (that attacks weren't weathered out) the carriers were ignored completely. This is in line with the frequent and vocal complaints about the carriers not being attacked when they sail down to PM.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 115
Re: Re: You seem like a reasonable man kang - 7/13/2002 7:45:49 AM   
jww60

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford [B] No good. With B17's, the range of PM is halfway to Truk. Gotta fix the low-level bombing, or eliminate it. [/B][/QUOTE] Has anyone looked at the ranges of the B-17E and B-17G? Could the E model's range be too long? The database shows the ranges to be identical, yet the B-17G carried an extra 1000 US gallons of fuel. B-17E: 1,730 USG, B-17G: 2,810 USG -- Jeff

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 116
- 7/13/2002 8:00:07 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

I agree with everything you say here.

Players tend to play much more aggressively and less conservatively than historical commanders, because they aren't dealing with real lives and real nations. Perhaps this game does so well as a simulation of tactics it would now behoove players to see the wisdom of conservative tactics :

Don't move ANYTHING into LBA range if you can avoid it.
If you can't avoid it, bring along : escort, carriers, flak platforms, etc. Doesn't sound unreasonable or ahistorical to me. [/B][/QUOTE]

And I completely agree with this. 2 out of my 3 PBEM opponents have been very agressive. A carrier attack on Brisbane with a single CVL ? (Its sunk now) and in Scenario 19 loading up all of the US transports and occupying Lunga (lots of sunk transports).

I also have been agressive, but playing scenario 16 and 19 as the US (and being forced to reload..) taught me the value of being conservative.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 117
I would like to say... - 7/13/2002 9:23:50 AM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		that increasing the repair time of the four engine bombers is a very good idea (I believe that especially since I think I posted it first ;-)

Once a b-17 squadron comes back (as mine often do) all shot to s@#$ with one of 12 lost, but literally 10 of the remaining 11 damaged and they take a month to fully fix, many fewer people will complain and rampant low level bombing will take on a better attitude where only lightly defended transports or super high value (BB and CV's) are worth the risk....

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 118
Re: I would like to say... - 7/13/2002 10:09:48 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by doomonyou
[B]that increasing the repair time of the four engine bombers is a very good idea (I believe that especially since I think I posted it first ;-)

Once a b-17 squadron comes back (as mine often do) all shot to s@#$ with one of 12 lost, but literally 10 of the remaining 11 damaged and they take a month to fully fix, many fewer people will complain and rampant low level bombing will take on a better attitude where only lightly defended transports or super high value (BB and CV's) are worth the risk.... [/B][/QUOTE]

You wont get an argument from me. Alot of good ideas found in this thread to which yours may very well be the best.....exactly the type of "pro and con" situation i've felt has been missing from the air corps in the game, whether B-17 or Hudson or PBY. Let players keep the option to fly low.....but at the risk of increased losses to flak, damage to flak, disruption (and loss of accuracy) from flak and fatique to the pilots. Worst of all.....increased down time back at base from having planes with too many peep-holes and shot out engines making them spare barracks instead of flying machines of war. ;)

Big difference between a 'Fort taking on a wallowing and/or ill defended Transport group with few guns and trying to slip in at low altitude against a heavily defended air or surface force.

the 'size'/maneuverability penalty to flak too.....all great stuff. Matrix should be able to reap much from all this.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 119
- 7/13/2002 11:23:15 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		***B-17***2 weeks***Same test parameters@3000'***

1539 total sorties
511 combat sorties (367 ground sorties, 144 naval sorties)
20 flak losses (20 ground, 0 naval)
5 Op losses

628 ground hits = 171.12% per AC ground sortie (208.5%)
54 naval hits = 37.5% per AC naval sortie (77.5%)

138 damaged AC out of 367 ground sorties = 37.6% (62.24%)
20 destroyed AC out of 367 ground sorties = 5.45% (8.29%)
0 destroyed AC out 144 naval sorties = 0% (0%)
4 damaged AC out of 144 naval sorties = 2.8% (8.7%)
5 Operational Losses out 1539 sorties = 0.32% (0.4%)

Trend is clear. At 1000' you're getting your accuracy against naval targets doubled. This isn't accompanied with a statistically significant increase in flak losses/damage, as the threat to B-17's from shipboard flak is virtually non-existant at any altitude.

Ground bombing accuracy somewhat reduced at 3000', but accompanied by a significant reduction in flak damage.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.781