RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

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 >> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 2:25:32 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'll wager you already know the answer. The bombs are what they are, and the game engine does not distinguish them by what platform delivered them.

Except, among other variables which may or may not be in the model, this plane has a max bomb-load of 8300 lbs, and a B-29 carries 20,000. Better bomb sight? I'm sure the B-29s aiming was a bit better.

This is also 10,000 feet, not 6000. We can't see AA and CAP sections. But a number were damaged, By what?

Bomb-load, terrain, altitude, accuracy, opposition. And there are different results!

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/10/2011 2:27:41 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 151

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 3:19:17 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Better results, ok but 26 times better results?

Attack mode should make more of a difference than bomb load for ground attack (unlike city attack).

Why do you think they invented dive bombing and fighter-bombers? Because level bombers are crap at hitting anything smaller than a city block.

< Message edited by rader -- 11/10/2011 3:31:48 AM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 152

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 3:57:04 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Better results, ok but 26 times better results?

Attack mode should make more of a difference than bomb load for ground attack (unlike city attack).

Why do you think they invented dive bombing and fighter-bombers? Because level bombers are crap at hitting anything smaller than a city block.

Except 200 B-29s at 6000 feet hit 200 icity blocks with 20,000 LBS per plane. When you compare this to dive bombing it's nuts. Not that 200 DBs could bomb in tight quarters without committing widespread fratricide . . .

Jsut for grins I ran the below attack in my current May 1945 game. It's not exactly congruent to yours. I only had one sighted Japanese unit not in a base hex in range of my B-29 base on Sakhalin Island, and it was a fortress. It was not in Move mode, and was, obviously, fortified. Terrain is wooded. It was also not reconned in any way. I bombed at 6000 feet, no fighter escort. Only B-29s, several models. I didn't play with COs. They were rested, but not every unit is filled out. The weather was rainy.

Japanese losses were 10 squads KIA, and 2 guns.

I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on 3rd Border Defense Fortress, at 112,42 , near Mutankiang

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3
B-29-25 Superfort x 71
B-29B Superfort x 164

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
993 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 14 disabled
Guns lost 15 (2 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/10/2011 4:05:48 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 153

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:18:03 AM

sandman455

Posts: 209
Joined: 7/5/2011
From: 20 yrs ago - SDO -> med down, w/BC glasses on
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

There are no such links, except on the internet which express a very simplistic appreciation of a weapon's effectiveness. That simplistic effect is what the poster may have been referring to.

A bomb or shell's lethal radius is the function of many factors, not the least of which is the fuze timing. Bury the bomb or shell, before fuze activation, and its lethal radius goes to hell. Bombs and shells have two primary kill modes, kinetic kills by fragmentation and bio-rupture kills by blast over-pressure. The primary kill mechanism is fragmentation. Blast over-pressure is a secondary kill mechanism. The lethal radius of a 500 pound GP bomb, contact fuzed, against exposed soft targets, for a 10% hit probability, was approximately 100 yards.

The utility of large bombs, and shells, was their ability to stun and disrupt areal targets.

Matt

Ah yes, someone who knows.

/salute

I've have avoided this thread until now. And given the conviction of many, I doubt anything I would say would be of much use anyway. Besides, it has been almost 2 decades since I made a living doing such stuff. And even today I'm scared that I might cross the boundries of what is history, what is common sense, and what is not suppose to be discussed, ever.

All I will say is that the man from Canada has some valid points.

The only advice I'd give to my fellow players is let history be your guide. The brains of their day, knew the limitations of the platforms/weapons and this applies to both sides. I feel comfortable in saying that if they thought it would work, then they would have done it. If they didn't do it, or you didn't read about them doing it, then there are probably some very good reasons why they didn't.

When do you guys find time to play anyway?

_____________________________

Gary S (USN 1320, 1985-1993)
AOCS 1985, VT10 1985-86, VT86 1986, VS41 1986-87
VS32 1987-90 (NSO/NWTO, deployed w/CV-66, CVN-71)
VS27 1990-91 (NATOPS/Safety)
SFWSLANT 1991-93 (AGM-84 All platforms, S-3 A/B systems)

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 154

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 5:40:56 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Ok, as witpqs and The Moose already pointed out, the whole thing is pretty simple.

We have a couple of variables which influence how much damage a raid deals to the target per plane.
DL, MDL, AA, weather, crew skill, bomb size, number of bombs, distance to target, morale, terrain, number of units in hex, type of devices in hex, bombing altitude.

There is no separate formula per delivery platform (which puts all level bombers on equal footing except for bomb load and size, and
this is the reason for HB always soming out on top of LB...). There is only a certain difference between dive and level bomb
which seems to be outweighted by number of bombs dropped.

So: if all or most variables hand a + to the attacker and he incidentially flies an HB at 6k the game engine favoures extreme results.
And: if you nerf HB effectiveness chances are you will nerf low-med skil bombing, high alt bombing, and MB and LB effectiveness.
Also: the drawbacks of operating HB instead of MB/LB are pretty much AF size/supply consumption/service level and are outweighted by the advantages.

So nothing new here. Now, when the question comes to how to solve this, you get 100 different proposals
ranging from impossible to ineffective, or from-doesn�t-change-a-thing to nerfs-the-other-end-of-the-spectrum.

Which means the solution is complex that it probably will not be possible to implement with our dedicated one-man-show or needs to be weighted
extremely carefully and my show up in +1 year in the modders section.

You don�t need a 7 pager to come to this conclusion, this was already pretty obvious before this thread existed, and a simple HR takes care of things
better than any state of the art patch can. Which was also pretty obvious from the start.

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 155

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 7:22:00 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

I would say this might be an example of how ground bombing is borked the other way.

Tu-2 is a specific ground attack bomber. Yet over a hundred of them merely manage to destroy a few squads...

How come 4E bombers do way more damage than planes actually designed for the ground attack role?

And before you point this out, yes it's rough terrain, but do you seriously think 46 times the damage is a reasonable result for B-29s compared with Tu-2s? (26 times the damage per plane...)

That kind of damage (1 casualty per bomber) is my rule of thumb.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 156

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 7:42:04 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

The lethal radius of a 500 pound bomb was 60-90 feet

I'd like to see a link to support that with some more details. 90 feet was probably the "100%" lethal radius. Meaning that every person prone, sitting, or standing within 90 of a 500lb bomb who didn't have a concrete wall between themself and the blast was either blown to bits or killed by the concussion. The "really good chance you could be killed by the detonation" radius was probably on the order of 150 feet. And the "induces shock, ruptured eardrums, broken limbs, and a general unwillingness to be combat effective" radius may have been much greater still.

There are no such links, except on the internet which express a very simplistic appreciation of a weapon's effectiveness. That simplistic effect is what the poster may have been referring to.

A bomb or shell's lethal radius is the function of many factors, not the least of which is the fuze timing. Bury the bomb or shell, before fuze activation, and its lethal radius goes to hell. Bombs and shells have two primary kill modes, kinetic kills by fragmentation and bio-rupture kills by blast over-pressure. The primary kill mechanism is fragmentation. Blast over-pressure is a secondary kill mechanism. The lethal radius of a 500 pound GP bomb, contact fuzed, against exposed soft targets, for a 10% hit probability, was approximately 100 yards.

The utility of large bombs, and shells, was their ability to stun and disrupt areal targets.

Matt

Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty?

_____________________________

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 157

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 12:08:47 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Japanese losses were 10 squads KIA, and 2 guns.

I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on 3rd Border Defense Fortress, at 112,42 , near Mutankiang

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3
B-29-25 Superfort x 71
B-29B Superfort x 164

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
993 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 14 disabled
Guns lost 15 (2 destroyed, 13 disabled)

I think what most players are seeing is: Now bomb the next turn. The disrupted units will not have fully recovered, and will be destroyed. 3 turns, you will have nothing left.

But, as has already been pointed out, this isn't going to get changed in spite of the game consequences. LoBaron is correct, for PBEM HR's can be erected to mitigate. For AI players, you have to break out the editor. I would suggest moving on. There a lovely picture of BB that is far more appealing in another thread ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 158

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 2:35:10 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think what most players are seeing is: Now bomb the next turn. The disrupted units will not have fully recovered, and will be destroyed. 3 turns, you will have nothing left.

If I were really bored today I'd run two more turns and see. But I'm not that bored.

But, as has already been pointed out, this isn't going to get changed in spite of the game consequences. LoBaron is correct, for PBEM HR's can be erected to mitigate. For AI players, you have to break out the editor.

As a moose with some repute as an AI-only player I have to say that this test was the first time I've ever even considered using hundreds of B-29s to bomb an LCU in the open. Never even occurred to me. I use them historically, for City strikes 90%, and about 10% for Port strikes in the HI where I suspect or know there are fuel-starved ships squatting at the pier.

I have used lesser LBs to Ground attack in Burma, Java, Sumatra, and Indo-China, often to try to finish off routed units in the bush. Results have been unsatisfactory. One unit in northern Burma I've been strafing at 100 ft. with P-47s daily for over six months. At this point it's more a point of comedy than anything else for me.

The AI abhors leaving LCUs in the open pretty much everywhere except China. Most ground attacks necessarily are on some level of urban terrain and don't score division-killing numbers. For PBEM players I'd say again: just say no to HRs. Put your men in cities, not the fields.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 159

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 2:43:58 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

There often is no option but to use a clear terrain hex. You have to move through them or occupy them to avoid getting flanked. Maybe AI doesn't know how to flank but always attacks directly, but real people do...

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 160

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 2:56:15 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

There often is no option but to use a clear terrain hex. You have to move through them or occupy them to avoid getting flanked. Maybe AI doesn't know how to flank but always attacks directly, but real people do...

In those circumstances it is incumbent upon the player to prepare adequately. If one must stay on a clear terrain, bring adequate AA or arrange for CAP. If forced to retreat through clear terrain prepare in advance before defeated in battle. If none of this possible, tough, that is war.

Alfred

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 161

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 3:21:22 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

I have the solution!!! A new HR. Ban all 4E bombers!!!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 162

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 3:31:55 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

There often is no option but to use a clear terrain hex. You have to move through them or occupy them to avoid getting flanked. Maybe AI doesn't know how to flank but always attacks directly, but real people do...

In those circumstances it is incumbent upon the player to prepare adequately. If one must stay on a clear terrain, bring adequate AA or arrange for CAP. If forced to retreat through clear terrain prepare in advance before defeated in battle. If none of this possible, tough, that is war.

Alfred

Playing the Japanese, looking at my in-use AAA device numbers, I have guns to provide what Allied players would probably consider "adequate AAA" of 150+ heavy guns per hex to less than 10 hexes on the entire map. Even 150+ probably wont shoot down a 4E bomber more than one every other raid(lol) but its better than nothing.

I stand behind my opinion of ground bombing being "borked" and giving way off the scale results in certain situations because the bomb runs and damage are calculated bomber by bomber instead of per formation, as long as those same bombers still retain their formation bonus against CAP and AAA, every time that they do not attack squad by squad, uncoordinated, when they would suffer more from AAA and especially CAP, as those raids would be impossible to escort which they most definitely should be with those results, for a single formation, against land units spread over a 40nm hex.

Posts by me, herwin, PaxMondo and obvert earlier in this thread...

Alfred, the Japanese player is also able to "abuse" the R&D as well as the production system to his advantage. I suppose the Allied player must destroy those factories and R&D plants to avoid meeting Ki-100s by mid-43 and jets by early 1945. If he is unable to that, too bad, as such is war. However, the WitPAE still remains a computer game, one that I'm going to play probably thousands of hours before I reach 1945 and the ultimate defeat of Japan in my PBEM. During that journey, I'm going to have some "fun and dangerous situations" and I hope my opponent is also. Abusing Japanese production, night bombing, moving restricted LCUs by land, non-basehex invasions, fragment-paradrops, single-ship TFs/massed xAKL pickets and many other things fall under "gaming the game" to me. Allowed by the game? Of course. Realistic? Not always. Historical? Rarely. WAD? Almost never. ...and fun? Some times to one player until his opponent complains or just quits if it gets bad enough, but often to neither.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 163

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 3:59:16 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have the solution!!!� A new HR.� Ban all 4E bombers!!!�

It seems as if some JFBs are heading that way.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 164

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 3:59:23 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have the solution!!!� A new HR.� Ban all 4E bombers!!!�

Agreed. Shall we implement this solution immediately in our game?

_____________________________

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 165

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:06:23 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Better results, ok but 26 times better results?

Attack mode should make more of a difference than bomb load for ground attack (unlike city attack).

Why do you think they invented dive bombing and fighter-bombers? Because level bombers are crap at hitting anything smaller than a city block.

Except 200 B-29s at 6000 feet hit 200 icity blocks with 20,000 LBS per plane. When you compare this to dive bombing it's nuts. Not that 200 DBs could bomb in tight quarters without committing widespread fratricide . . .

Jsut for grins I ran the below attack in my current May 1945 game. It's not exactly congruent to yours. I only had one sighted Japanese unit not in a base hex in range of my B-29 base on Sakhalin Island, and it was a fortress. It was not in Move mode, and was, obviously, fortified. Terrain is wooded. It was also not reconned in any way. I bombed at 6000 feet, no fighter escort. Only B-29s, several models. I didn't play with COs. They were rested, but not every unit is filled out. The weather was rainy.

Japanese losses were 10 squads KIA, and 2 guns.

I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on 3rd Border Defense Fortress, at 112,42 , near Mutankiang

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3
B-29-25 Superfort x 71
B-29B Superfort x 164

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
993 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 14 disabled
Guns lost 15 (2 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Great example, Bull. I would suspect that the force that you've deployed in your example would be comparable to those that Strat bombed Tokyo in March 1945. By definition, that would be an 'open' hex with lots of flammable houses, etc. One night's worth of low altitude strat bombing reduced a sizeable chunk of the city to cinders, killing upwards of 100,000.

By comparison, your size force killed the equivalent of 100 guys and two guns? It's all about the fortifications and terrain.

I've got no problem with the way ground bombing is modelled in the game. Open terrain is a killing field by either land attack or air attack. Woe unto the undefended / unprotected ground troops that get caught by bombers in such a scenario.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 166

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:12:50 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have the solution!!!� A new HR.� Ban all 4E bombers!!!�

Agreed. Shall we implement this solution immediately in our game?

Ha..... 1 day after you agree to actually use a beta build.

No, wait. You would probably agree to that. Nevermind.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 167

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:19:07 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Ha..... 1 day after you agree to actually use a beta build.

Agreed. Shall we implement this solution immediately in our game?

quote:

No, wait. You would probably agree to that. Nevermind.

Doh!

_____________________________

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 168

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:27:05 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think what most players are seeing is: Now bomb the next turn. The disrupted units will not have fully recovered, and will be destroyed. 3 turns, you will have nothing left.

If I were really bored today I'd run two more turns and see. But I'm not that bored.

But, as has already been pointed out, this isn't going to get changed in spite of the game consequences. LoBaron is correct, for PBEM HR's can be erected to mitigate. For AI players, you have to break out the editor.

As a moose with some repute as an AI-only player I have to say that this test was the first time I've ever even considered using hundreds of B-29s to bomb an LCU in the open. Never even occurred to me. I use them historically, for City strikes 90%, and about 10% for Port strikes in the HI where I suspect or know there are fuel-starved ships squatting at the pier.

I have used lesser LBs to Ground attack in Burma, Java, Sumatra, and Indo-China, often to try to finish off routed units in the bush. Results have been unsatisfactory. One unit in northern Burma I've been strafing at 100 ft. with P-47s daily for over six months. At this point it's more a point of comedy than anything else for me.

The AI abhors leaving LCUs in the open pretty much everywhere except China. Most ground attacks necessarily are on some level of urban terrain and don't score division-killing numbers. For PBEM players I'd say again: just say no to HRs. Put your men in cities, not the fields.

Moose,

Not disagreeing with you here. And test or not hardly matters, there is plenty of data in lot's of AAR's now to examine. Like you, I only am able to play AI. However, when you play on the other side of the AI as IJ, you will see B-29's (and other 4E's) routinely coming in at 4000-6000 ft at night at any target in range. Like I said, good news is that there is always the editor.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 169

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:29:19 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Great example, Bull. I would suspect that the force that you've deployed in your example would be comparable to those that Strat bombed Tokyo in March 1945. By definition, that would be an 'open' hex with lots of flammable houses, etc. One night's worth of low altitude strat bombing reduced a sizeable chunk of the city to cinders, killing upwards of 100,000.

By comparison, your size force killed the equivalent of 100 guys and two guns? It's all about the fortifications and terrain.

I've got no problem with the way ground bombing is modelled in the game. Open terrain is a killing field by either land attack or air attack. Woe unto the undefended / unprotected ground troops that get caught by bombers in such a scenario.

An aside to my attack. I ordered the bombing the day before, but nothing flew due to weather. On the next day reported above roughly 50% of the units launched but failed to link up and RTBed. Large-scale Allied 4e bombing is not a light switch to be flipped on and off.

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one, even in WITP days when I could routinely get 900 B-29s over a HI city at night. In that sense 4e bombing IS "borked" against the Allies.

Imagine the JFB wailing if Tokyo could be reduced in one attack. A-bombs don't even do that.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 170

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:34:42 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Great example, Bull. I would suspect that the force that you've deployed in your example would be comparable to those that Strat bombed Tokyo in March 1945. By definition, that would be an 'open' hex with lots of flammable houses, etc. One night's worth of low altitude strat bombing reduced a sizeable chunk of the city to cinders, killing upwards of 100,000.

By comparison, your size force killed the equivalent of 100 guys and two guns? It's all about the fortifications and terrain.

I've got no problem with the way ground bombing is modelled in the game. Open terrain is a killing field by either land attack or air attack. Woe unto the undefended / unprotected ground troops that get caught by bombers in such a scenario.

An aside to my attack. I ordered the bombing the day before, but nothing flew due to weather. On the next day reported above roughly 50% of the units launched but failed to link up and RTBed. Large-scale Allied 4e bombing is not a light switch to be flipped on and off.

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one, even in WITP days when I could routinely get 900 B-29s over a HI city at night. In that sense 4e bombing IS "borked" against the Allies.

Imagine the JFB wailing if Tokyo could be reduced in one attack. A-bombs don't even do that.

Yes, my analogy is imprecise, but the destructive potential of this number of B-29s is clearly on display in my strat bombing (RL) example. Any damage shy of that (e.g., your LCU attack example) to entrenched troops is quite plausible in my mind. In other words, Japanese players are getting off easy most of the time against the B29 onslaught if this is the way that such LCU bombing is modelled.

I wouldn't necessarily cry if 25% of Tokyo got so cremated in one full-scale low night strat bombing. I mean, it would suck from the Japanese player's perspective, but that's what happened IRL, so why should I complain? The way to prevent Tokyo from getting firebombed? Keep Allied B-29s out of range. Doom on Japanese players that don't recognize this simple overarching goal to the Japanese war effort.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 171

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:37:43 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Not disagreeing with you here. And test or not hardly matters, there is plenty of data in lot's of AAR's now to examine. Like you, I only am able to play AI. However, when you play on the other side of the AI as IJ, you will see B-29's (and other 4E's) routinely coming in at 4000-6000 ft at night at any target in range. Like I said, good news is that there is always the editor.

I keep meaning to hold my nose and try to play the Japanese, but I keep putting it off.

I have no problem using the Editor to make the game be all you want it to be, or not be. I used it in my current game to adjust some aircraft maintenance levels, to pump up Perth's shipyard by 2000 tons, and to make my dad the CO of the sub he served in. (I was very careful with her in Super E time, and she's still alive, although she's been DCed three times to 50 float damge.)

Ironically, I also, based on a first game frustration with strat bombing and arguments here that TInian was too small in the game, boosted Tinian to a Level 9 AF, intending to do a LeMay on the HI. Then I completely ignored invading the Marianas in the second game. Oops. The Japanese happily made the region around Tinian a no-go zone for the entire game. I still have to route every west-bound convoy south around Truk and all of the Marianas.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/10/2011 4:41:34 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 172

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:38:26 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one,

If you play Downfall, you will see it frequently. Fires will get up >100,000 at the end of the run, and the next day still be buring +50,000 with all the accompanying losses. I believe that is a firestorm....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 173

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:39:27 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one,

If you play Downfall, you will see it frequently. Fires will get up >100,000 at the end of the run, and the next day still be buring +50,000 with all the accompanying losses. I believe that is a firestorm....

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 174

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:40:43 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Doom on Japanese players that don't recognize this simple overarching goal to the Japanese war effort.

Were that all Japanese players were so eminently reasonable, exceptionally educated, and all around swell as you are yourself, sir. Kudos. Bravo, and kudos.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 175

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:42:35 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one,

If you play Downfall, you will see it frequently. Fires will get up >100,000 at the end of the run, and the next day still be buring +50,000 with all the accompanying losses. I believe that is a firestorm....

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Yes, if I understand you question. You see a lot more factories damaged, and even if no attack, more factories damage until the fires=0.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 176

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:45:04 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Exaclty. I believe from memory that the devs stated that a firestorm would only destroy the Manpower stocks. It should eat up HI and LI produciton facilities, remove refineries completely, and severely reduce Resources if present.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 177

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:47:43 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

As you guys are pointing out, it's true that the modeling is (of course) imperfect, and it's off in both directions for different things. We can want to get each thing right, but in the real world it ain't gonna happen. Even though Michael keeps fixing many things there are just too many in the long run. And, it goes beyond 4EB - naval attack (as I've mentioned before) has also been shown to have many issues. Just one is what someone mentioned here in terms of torpedo ordnance available to IJ air groups, especially early in the game. If you play with a modest amount of restraint, but not hobbling house rules, you get a good contest.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 178

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:48:27 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Exaclty. I believe from memory that the devs stated that a firestorm would only destroy the Manpower stocks. It should eat up HI and LI produciton facilities, remove refineries completely, and severely reduce Resources if present.

Oh - I thought a firestorm was supposed to take shots at everything there.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 179

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/10/2011 4:54:30 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Exaclty. I believe from memory that the devs stated that a firestorm would only destroy the Manpower stocks. It should eat up HI and LI produciton facilities, remove refineries completely, and severely reduce Resources if present.

That's my recollection as well. That the fires (which are stoked by a firestorm) further destroy those production facilities, refineries and so forth that were hitherto merely damaged. Such factory destruction yields considerably more strat bombing points than merely damaging the factories. Destroyed factory points cannot be repaired, IIRC.

My (ongoing) questions regarding the 100,000+ fires are, "OK-I get that there are some fires burning out of control for a couple days. A firestorm by any other name. Got it. So-how does that formulaic 100,000 fires translate towards factory destruction?" I do not recall any answer to this other than 'it's in the code and therefore not subject to the light of day'.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 180