Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.

You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.

No no... All those strikes I quoted are Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133.
As you see, A6M2-N Rufe x 4 appears 6 times.
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31 appears 3 times, and Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10 appears 2 times. Some of those other Tojo groups might partly be "ghost" planes too. Like I said, it's a minor bug, a known display glitch. They are escorting only once, but they appear several times.

Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.

You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.

No no... All those strikes I quoted are Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133.
As you see, A6M2-N Rufe x 4 appears 6 times.
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31 appears 3 times, and Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10 appears 2 times. Some of those other Tojo groups might partly be "ghost" planes too. Like I said, it's a minor bug, a known display glitch. They are escorting only once, but they appear several times.

Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...

If you set one squadron to LRCAP some hex, and then rest of the squadrons fly in the same hex to do their other missions you get results like that - the squadron set to LRCAP shows all the time, even though it is usually not participating in the battle at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...

Ahh, bummer.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Of course it's possible that I'm wrong and there was about 180 Tojos (at least 5 Sentais) escorting AM stikes, but I seriously doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...

Ahh, bummer.

Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...

Ahh, bummer.

Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.

Well, when I noticed it first time, my opponent told me it's known display glitch...

quote:


So, my solution would be to combine the service rating with durability. This would allow you to model low durability planes with high service ratings as having extreme operational losses whilst also allowing you to show clear differences between high durability 4-engined bombers which had high reliability ( Lancasters, later models of the B29 ) and high durability 4-engine bombers with poor reliability ( early models of the B29 where engines often spontaneously caught fire mid-flight ). By decoupling ops losses from strictly correlating just to durability you'd improve the model. The best, simple, quickest to implement method for doing this would be to link ops losses to durability combined with service rating.

It is simple, gives face validity, can be easily explained and justified to the community ( important because of the Castor Troys out there who will claim anything they do is broken in some way ( albeit only in his copy of the game ) ), is reliable and allows a deeper level of modelling which allows a greater ( and more realistic ) differentiation between different plane types ( e.g. early model B29s which were much more likely to become ops losses than late-model B29s ).

It would require a code change but since the values are already calculated for service ratings it would be quicker to implement than having to calculate and represent new "temperamentability" ratings for all the various planes and then having to implement that. That could be a goal for AE 2.

quote:

Well, I'm removing myself from the discussion. It has become useless because people couldn't maintain focus and, instead of starting their own threads to discuss how aviation support etc played into the grand strategic game decided to polute the thread.

I'm not posting this to be pissy but just to make people think about this and ask themselves what was so difficult about respecting the intention of the thread and just starting a 2nd parallel discussion about aviation support etc etc. The NEW THREAD button is there for a reason guys.

This sort of discussion creep renders focused discussion impossible and is one reason a lot of high calibre people will no longer discuss issues in the War Room and elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Anyway what is good about discussion, is that perspective on events vary due to fow, incomplete information and observer bias. Discussion should illuminate what is percieved against what actually happened. The estimate on Tojo's in the air in the above example is grossly out, perhaps as much as x4 although i hate to disabuse my honoured opponent of the strength of the Japanese Airforce. Likewise i see hordes of 4e bombers apparently flying with impunity thorugh whatever i throw at them.

quote:



There is a very strong tendency to always focus on what is being done to your own beloved pixeltruppen while not focusing enough on what you've done to your opponent. What you have done to your opponent is shrouded in the murk of the fog of war, while what is being done to you is painfully (literally) obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

mjk428,

Sadly your post is crippled by the fact that the facts you state are pretty much all wrong or misrepresented:

1. JFB: No, I alternate as Allies or Japanese. I'm a fan boy for skillful strategic play and mindgames, not for either side. I DO like technical characteristics to be modelled accurately but then am happy to use them in a "what if" sort of way. Dealing with the bomber defensive armament is simply an extension of that.

2. As to your first quote.... I was asked how I would improve the current operational loss model which causes excessive operational losses to transport planes and patrol planes which have low durability and engage in many, long flights relative to other planes. That combination of factors resulting in massive ops losses as the ops model looks at durability, flight range and frequency ( as well as a few other things ) to determine ops losses. Stating that the model I outlined would require a code change is a simple statement of fact. It wasn't lobbying for a code change. If you asked me how it might be possible to better model something and I answered you it wouldn't be analogous to lobbying for the change. I trust that the very basic difference between lobbying and answering a question is now apparent to you.

3. That quote was NOT, at all, related to the other quote you've taken out of context. I absented myself from the discussion because the failure of people to observe basic courtesy and start new threads to discuss side-issues meant that this thread lost focus on the original issue - improving the interaction between bombers ( of both sides ) and fighters ( of both sides ). It had nothing to do with the quote you have above which was my response to a direct question.


So, I don't know whether you merely misread things or whether you were being maliciously disingenuous but I trust this clarifies it. Sorry if the tone is a bit harsh but I HATE when people who misquote others and make it seem they're saying things they aren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

1) nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

2) It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

3) So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

4) And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

1) nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

2) It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

3) So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

4) And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum.

1) OK. Cool.

2) Nemo threw a fit and (supposedly) left the thread because he was unable to satisfactorily dictate the terms of discussion.

3) No the wrong designation was not why I posted. Although it was the reason I initially clicked on the thread. I was curious to see how B-52s figured into the game.

4) I agree with you. It was Nemo that was being anal about sticking to the topic to the point that further discussion became unbearable for him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'd like to start this thread to continue a discussion 1EyedJacks and I have been having about B-17s in the early war, particularly as I'm seeing a different side of the same stick in my 1945 game. I'd like to invite anyone to contribute as 1EyedJacks in particular wants to build up a picture of others' experience with 4-engined bombers both commanding and opposing them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Severe storms
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...

Does the part I bolded matter?

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Nope, leave the forts alone unless there is a willingness to address other issues in the game. Yes, I agree that my heavy bombers are a bit stronger and have more influence than they should in AE. However, as the Allied player I am dealing with-in no particular order:


The Japanese ability to train up great pilots in endless numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, as I see it the model could be improved upon.

If I were asked to come up with an improvement to the ops loss model ( which I haven't been and never will be. Not too popular with many of the developers ) there would be two options:

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html

Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this.

Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game...

The problem with these reports are they from the pilots involved... for instance, there was a report (which is still in circulation) where an SBD pilot shot down something like 5 attacking IJN planes (Vals, Kates, etc.) The pilot got a medal and promoted to fighters.

Problem is, after the war, it was shown none of this happened. Stuff like this happened over and over again with pilots reporting multiple kills, and yet none them verified when enemy records were examined.

Sakai's book, while interesting, suffered from not having verification on a number of the incidents he claimed.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The issue with this aspect is, as always, the far reaching consequeces of even a minor change. Makes WitPAE one real ba***** to tweak.

I think SuluSea is spot on when he introduces a further aspect: op losses are not always, but sometimes, related to A2A, so its very difficult to get a clear picture
of the interactions. You simply cannot assume to what an op loss is originally related to (e.g. AC previeousely damaged in an engagement crashing on landing because of the damage).

I still would opt for the gun accuracy option to test.

While I agree, Ideally there would be a formation cohesion test that affects the accuracy of bomber defensive armaments; for all I know of the code, there already is. This should apply to all bomber formations, not just HBs. The example of what happened to Sakai when he "pounced" on a formation of TBFs comes to mind.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

These are the two day-raids for 5.22.42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 33
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 18
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 10
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11 Roughly 70/30 Fighter/Bomber with a little over 40 of those fighters armed with a 20mm gun.



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 29


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 10 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed on ground
G3M2 Nell: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 25 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 35

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (33 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
33 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (6 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 9
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 4
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 8



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 4 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged



Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
20 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 250 minutes
77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes
264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 61 minutes

Notes:
@ Singapore: Serviceable/Maint/Damage/Reserve - these are the fighter units assigned Day Ops. I'm unsure if any fighter groups assigned Night Ops missions would have scrambled but some aircarft from those units could be in the ground losses...
12 Oscar-Ic now 6/0/2/0
10 Oscar-Ic now 3/0/5/0
12 Oscar-Ic now 6/0/4/0
27 Oscar-Ib now 14/0/8/0
31 NickKAIa now 14/0/12/0
45 A6M2 Zero now 28/0/3/1

Just as an FYI some of these units had aircraft in the shop from the day B4. Also airfield was pummeled. All fighters set @ 80/20 CAP/Rest. Moral is taking a beating on a few of my air groups - more then usual - probably due to the pummeling of the base by the 4E bombers?

There was some AAA activity but I didn't see any 4E go down. I think Flak damage message came up 5 times during the 1st attack.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

In all the games that I have played I have never seen that many fighters shot down by 4E bombers. I have had my bombers damaged and spending a lot of time being repaired, which is what I expect.

Part of the problem with PBEM is players will launch huge raids which seldom happened especially early in the war. That throws off the combat tables. The 20mm's on the Zero's are not that effective. It was proven in Europe that the slow firing 20mm did not work well in air-air combat. The changes you are talking about will change how the engine handles air combat and more 4E will be lost than should be. Find a good used bookstore and see if you can locate the Army Airforces in WWII. Its a multi-volumn set but it has after action reports and I found it to be rather informative. Pretty dry reading but you will see that the heavy bombers had very high survivablity against the Oscars and Zero's.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES