Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

 
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 >> Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own ... - 1/13/2003 7:54:18 AM   
HannoMeier


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi all,

first: I love UV. My most intense gaming experience for a long time. Because of my general enjoyment, I would like to point out 2 still remaining major weaknesses in the game (V.220)

1. US Level bomer accuracy (and invulnerability):

As the optimal height for US level bombers is 6000 feet (no Norden bomsight adjustment), my honorable opponent, Dan always come in from this hight. From my experience, if his bombers fly in, they could not be stopped in Air2Air (this should be further examined). The more important point is: Every bomber throws 3 bombs (3 splashes per bomber) and more than every 2nd bomber hits a ship. In this combat report, my ships were unloading, but the bombers are nearly as effective attacking ships at sea. The combination unstoppable and precisely hitting is too frustrating.

2. Hitting own mines:

During my ownership I mined Irau (San Christobal) extensively. When Dan invaded it, several of his Warships and Transports hit mines. He captured it in 2 days. On the 3rd day (base is now US) my bombardment TF arrived and mines hit about 10 times (including 3 mines on my BB Mutsu). They program had to simulate that this we MY own (completely mapped) defensive minefields!!! He had mines there, too, but I only hit my OWN mines. Also the Bombardment TF should have stayed away from the coast to bombard. (I read defensive mines are laid near the coats).


Matrix and all interested see yourself, please look at the attached Combat Save or the Combat report:

A little frustrated UV junkie. The game is otherwise nearly perfect.

Hanno
Post #: 1
- 1/14/2003 12:17:26 AM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline 		I agree about the B-17 accuracy, Hanno. It's slightly too accurate IMO. While I wouldn't condone a huge change, it would be an improvement if Matrix would adjust the B-17 accuracy down a bit.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 2
- 1/14/2003 4:02:37 AM   
HannoMeier


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline 		The attachments didn't came through. Or am I not allowed to post zip's with the Combat Save? Here is an excerpt from the actual combat report:

Nearly all bombers get through the CAP and about 50 bombers scored 28 bomb hits on the AP TF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M2 Zero x 9
A6M3 Zero x 7
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 20

Allied aircraft
Hudson x 3
P-38G Lightning x 23
B-25D Mitchell x 6
B-26B Marauder x 12
B-17E Fortress x 24
B-24D Liberator x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe x 1 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 1 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 3 damaged
B-26B Marauder x 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress x 2 damaged

1LT G. Gardner of 9th FS is credited with kill number 2

Japanese Ships
AP Katsuragisan Maru, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kaisho Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Kano Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Hokuyo Maru, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP Iwaki Maru, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kanayamasan Maru
AP Kaiko Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Horaisan Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 318
Guns lost 5

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x Hudson at 6000 feet
4 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
1 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
2 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 3
Re: Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting ... - 1/14/2003 4:47:16 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hanno Meier
[B]first: I love UV. My most intense gaming experience for a long time. Because of my general enjoyment, I would like to point out 2 still remaining major weaknesses in the game (V.220)

1. US Level bomer accuracy (and invulnerability):

2. Hitting own mines:
[/B][/QUOTE]
So, this is why I didn't get another move back from you yesterday. Are we officially on hold again??

Also, you probably should have mentioned the way-too-deadly strafing problem that we have banned by house rule.

_____________________________


(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 4
- 1/14/2003 5:13:26 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Ok, ships were docked unloading, and you got hit by a strike

38 Interceptors.
v.
23 P38's
51 LB's

Dumb Question:

Did you factor in Experience and Morale on both sides?

Allied total strike force outnumbers defenders 2:1 and unless Sakai is flying them all, I don't see how you stop this strike. If the ships were undocked, a few less hits would be reasonable.

Looks like IJN gave as well as it got in the air battle. What I don't see enough of is low experience attack groups being disrupted in the face of strong fighter CAP.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 5
Re: Re: Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitt... - 1/14/2003 5:29:29 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]So, this is why I didn't get another move back from you yesterday. Are we officially on hold again??

Also, you probably should have mentioned to way-too-deadly strafing problem that we have banned by house rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

You posted this kind of accusation on a public forum why?

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 6
Re: Re: Re: Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and ... - 1/14/2003 6:17:09 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reiryc
[B]You posted this kind of accusation on a public forum why?
[/B][/QUOTE]
What accusation are you referring to?????

_____________________________


(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 7
- 1/14/2003 6:29:24 AM   
HannoMeier


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline 		No problem Reiryc. This was a joke. An original Stafford :-)

He made a nice invasion 2 turns ago. So its time to get back at the Allies

Yes, I was "irritated" by the turn results, but the game goes on. Another turn tonight.

Regards, Hanno

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 8
- 1/14/2003 10:58:29 AM   
NorthStar

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline 		Just out of curiosity:

12x Marauders with 6 bombs each
6x Mitchells with 6 bombs each
24x B-17 with 12 bombs each
9x B-24 with 16 bombs each

That's 540(?!) bombs falling, of which you got 27 hits, or 5% (exactly!!) hit rate. Is that really all that high?

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 9
- 1/14/2003 9:46:11 PM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline 		If I remember correctly, from reading many books on the early part of the war, the B-17's were woefully inaccurate in their bombing. They got lucky and managed to score a few hits here and there, but nothing like the accuracy demonstrated against shipping, docked or undocked, in UV.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 10
Historical? - 1/14/2003 10:01:20 PM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bax
[B]If I remember correctly, from reading many books on the early part of the war, the B-17's were woefully inaccurate in their bombing. They got lucky and managed to score a few hits here and there, but nothing like the accuracy demonstrated against shipping, docked or undocked, in UV. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes...

But keep in mind that AFAIK bombing runs during daylight at 6,000 feet altitude did not occur during this time period very much (at all?) :)

And even if UV was an absolutely perfect simulation of everything in the South Pacific during this time period, IMHO we would still never get exactly historical results when we play because as soon as we fire up the game engine and start moving units we alter history with our plans/strategies.

We all know that bombing ships from 20,000 feet is almost totally worthless (or we figure it out after only a few tries). The USAAF however thought this was a great idea until experience (and the men at the sharp end of the stick) proved them wrong.

Now, I have no idea if these hit rates are too high for US air units, during this time period using this strategy . But, we simply can not compare what happened in reality (at 20,000 feet) to what we do in the game under different conditions (at 6,000).

As always, just my two cents.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 11
bomber altitudes - 1/14/2003 10:12:18 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The bombers did not attack at those higher altitudes because they were worried about flak. They knew lower altitudes would improve accuracy but the bombs themselves need to be droped from certain heights in order to have enough energy to penetrate the target. Now AP's are easier to penetrate then warships. And stationary AP's are sitting ducks. I do feel UV allows bombers to attack warships at too low an altitude, but not enough to take too great an issue with it. (It works both ways, the Japanese just do not have any bombers that can take advantage of this feature untill the army bombers show up.)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 12
- 1/14/2003 10:19:22 PM   
AP514

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 11/26/2001
From: Houston,TX ,USA
Status: offline 		HEY
WHATS THE STRAFE BUG YOU WERE TALK'N ABOUT...THE HOUSE RULE ??
YOU GOT ME ON THE HOOK....NOW TELL ME WHATS UP WITH THE STRAFE BUG ?


AP514

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 13
- 1/14/2003 10:25:36 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by AP514
[B]HEY WHATS THE STRAFE BUG YOU WERE TALK'N ABOUT...THE HOUSE RULE ?? YOU GOT ME ON THE HOOK....NOW TELL ME WHATS UP WITH THE STRAFE BUG? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sometimes when fighters are set to attack altitude of 100ft they use their machine guns instead of bombs. Sometimes these attacks cause ridiculous 3000+ casualties.

I remember that one of the Matrix guys responded that the bug has been fixed and the figures the pilots report are not real, but part of fog of war. This same overestimation of casualties applies to 100+ casualties in regural bombings as well. Or so I understood.

I haven't been able to veryfy this to one direction or another after 2.20, so I can't say for sure.

Hey I just got past 100 posts. Wow :D Now where did my life go?...I'm sure I saw it somewhere here just a little while ago..I wonder if its under my table..

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 14
- 1/14/2003 11:33:39 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		What annoys me is when 3 silly level bombers go off solo and blow through 27 cap over a AA infested port just to land that PERFECT hit on that AP that happens to be in a HUGE convoy of 3 whole ships!

Boy, a round of Silver Stars for those brave bomber boys!

Level Bombers seem to land hits way too often on shipping for my tastes, it seems WAY beyond the norm.

One can understand Betties and Nells that switch loadout to torpedos getting hits, but level bombers are way out of control. Remember the 1,000 plane raids of WWII, just to make sure they hit the target ... here we launch 3 and alter history! :eek:

I could understand 2-3 entire squadrons coming to carpet bomb the place and landing serious hits everywhere, but when 40 bombers generate 3!!! airfield hits vs 3 bombers generate 2 bomb hits on a moving naval target, the odds are just a tad off ;)

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 15
- 1/14/2003 11:45:32 PM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Remember the 1,000 plane raids of WWII, just to make sure they hit the target ... here we launch 3 and alter history! :eek:
[/B][/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying but you are doing exactly what I warned about in my last post.

You can not make any kind of valid comparison between 1,000 plane raids conducted in the European theater against fixed targets the size of small cities, at altitudes of 20,000+ to a low altitude bomb run (a 6,000 feet) in the Pacific Theater. :rolleyes:

Again, maybe the hits are too high. But, you can not compare the attacks we all execute at 6,000 feet with anything that happened in reality during this time period because they simply did not execute bomb runs with medium and heavy bombers at this altitude much (AFAIK).

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 16
- 1/14/2003 11:49:07 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]Again, maybe the hits are too high. But, you can not compare the attacks we all execute at 6,000 feet with anything that happened in reality during this time period because they simply did not execute bomb runs with medium and heavy bombers at this altitude much (AFAIK). [/B][/QUOTE]
Then we shouldn't be allowed to in UV.......

I have always thought that plane altitude should be abstracted completely out of the game (like Pac War).

_____________________________


(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 17
- 1/15/2003 12:05:54 AM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline
quote:

Again, maybe the hits are too high. But, you can not compare the attacks we all execute at 6,000 feet with anything that happened in reality during this time period because they simply did not execute bomb runs with medium and heavy bombers at this altitude much (AFAIK).


Exactly, and that's why we shouldn't be allowed to set bombing alt for heavy, four-engined bombers to anything less than 10,000ft. At the very least, there should be some kind of morale or fatigue penalty for forcing B-17's to fly lower than say 10,000ft. Maybe an increased stress level having to fly through all the flak.

Not everyone will agree with me, but there you have it.

Speaking of B-17's, has anyone manaed to shoot down a B-17 with an A6M2 yet in the early part of the war? I have yet to see this. My A6M2 CAP fly at 18,000ft, and yet whenever they take on the B-17's(unescorted, btw) at 6,000ft...they run away like little screaming girls. I know this was implemented in 2.20 to prevent the huge Zeke losses of previous releases, but jeez...

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 18
- 1/15/2003 12:18:00 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]You can not make any kind of valid comparison between 1,000 plane raids conducted in the European theater against fixed targets the size of small cities, at altitudes of 20,000+ to a low altitude bomb run (a 6,000 feet) in the Pacific Theater. [/QUOTE]

I really have to disagree with you there. A level bomber (even with the Norden bombsight) does not have anywhere near the accuracy of a dive bomber or torpedo bomber.

The odds of a level bomber such as a B-26 dropping it's 6 500 lb bombs and hitting 1 specific target the size of a ship from 6000 feet are pretty small, yet this game seems to have the AI do this every single turn of the game. When the game starts to register MULTIPLE hits for that same bomber, now I know we have gone off the deep end...

If these puppies were as accurate as UV portrays, then there would have been no need at all for CV's because it would have been a bomber war completely.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 19
- 1/15/2003 12:22:15 AM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline
quote:

If these puppies were as accurate as UV portrays, then there would have been no need at all for CV's because it would have been a bomber war completely.


Bingo! This is exactly what my first thoughts were when I experienced the accuracy of level bombing in UV.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 20
- 1/15/2003 12:24:04 AM   
NorthStar

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bax
[B]Exactly, and that's why we shouldn't be allowed to set bombing alt for heavy, four-engined bombers to anything less than 10,000ft. At the very least, there should be some kind of morale or fatigue penalty for forcing B-17's to fly lower than say 10,000ft. Maybe an increased stress level having to fly through all the flak.

Not everyone will agree with me, but there you have it.

Speaking of B-17's, has anyone manaed to shoot down a B-17 with an A6M2 yet in the early part of the war? I have yet to see this. My A6M2 CAP fly at 18,000ft, and yet whenever they take on the B-17's(unescorted, btw) at 6,000ft...they run away like little screaming girls. I know this was implemented in 2.20 to prevent the huge Zeke losses of previous releases, but jeez... [/B][/QUOTE]

1. For a lot of people, the whole point of a game like this is to play with different tactics that COULD have been used. To restrict the game to only tactics that WERE used would, IMHO, be too limiting. Following that logic, we get to no use of PBYs and Bombers for mass supply/troop transport, no building of bases where they were not built, no ability to turn off Japanese sub doctrine, etc. If any or all of this suit your fancy and playing style, feel free to make house rules. However, IMHO, I don't see why military DOCTRINE should be hard coded into the system. And before anyone says it, I don't think we should have 50,000 switches for all the options.

2. There IS a morale penalty for flying Level Bombers at low altitude (less than 5,000 feet, IIRC).

3. Multi-engine bombers (especially the B-17s) WERE very difficult for Japanese fighters to destroy. They simply didn't have the fire power to cause critical damage easily. I personally find that in small numbers, B-17s are regularly DAMAGED by even small flights of Zeros. In large numbers, the protect each other well, as they were designed to do.

4. Watch fighter fatigue. It seems to be the biggest factor in determining if a flight of fighters is driven away. The Area 51 tests found, if IIRC, that there is a particulary steep change (suddnely, lots of fighters are driven off) after about 30 fatigue.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 21
- 1/15/2003 12:53:44 AM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline 		Howdy NorthStar,

1. Yep, agreed. I realize my opinion would run counter to some people who want more freedom of action to do things that weren't necessarily done in "real life". But I still wouldn't mind being restricted in such a way.

2. I know there is a morale penalty for bombers that fly below 6,000 ft. That's why I used the number of 10,000. I think there should be a penalty for four-engined heavies below 10,000ft. I did RTFM, btw! :D

3. Absolutely, you'll get no argument out of me. The heavies were difficult to for the Japanese to shoot down. But they still managed to do it. I just have not seen it yet at all in any of my games since 2.20. In fact, because of this, I don't even bother with CAP at some of my rear bases anymore. Might as well use the fighters somewhere else.

4. Yep, managing fatigue is a key factor. I always rest my boys when they get above 30 in fatigue.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 22
- 1/15/2003 1:34:41 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]3. Multi-engine bombers (especially the B-17s) WERE very difficult for Japanese fighters to destroy. They simply didn't have the fire power to cause critical damage easily. I personally find that in small numbers, B-17s are regularly DAMAGED by even small flights of Zeros. In large numbers, the protect each other well, as they were designed to do.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the heavy bombers were difficult to shoot down. This seems to be protrayed quite nicely within the game as large numbers damaged but few destroyed.

BUT

when 20+ CAP (two groups of skilled 88 & 90 A6M2 Zeros) fail to stop 3 Hudsons (not a heavy bomber!) with an experience value of 61 (from the editor) which then proceed to get multiple hits on a small group of 3 ships I get a tad annoyed to say the least. While I can understand the CAP not being terribly effective at shooting down the planes, they should at least cause them to divert. That would be realistic.

If you find skill level 61 level bombers penetrating skill level 90 fighters assigned to cap over their own base fair and normal, then I guess we are not going to agree here. I find it downright silly that even with skilled rested cap patrolling over bases that have lots of AA that the unskilled unescorted bombers still sink ships in high quantities.

Please remember that even the game models the fact that a Hudson has a gun value of 10 and a durability of 32 compaired to your mythical B-17G with it's gun value of 39 and it's durability of 69 that can shoot back as good as it gets...

What I want explained is why all level bombers seem to perform as it they are B17-G's

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 23
- 1/15/2003 1:52:22 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I really have to disagree with you there. A level bomber (even with the Norden bombsight) does not have anywhere near the accuracy of a dive bomber or torpedo bomber...[/B][/QUOTE]

...which has nothing to do with the comparison you made.

You compared 1,000 plane raids conducted in the European Theater at altitudes of 20,000' + to small raids against ships, in port with bombers at 6,000 feet in the Pacific Theater.

The issue of dive bomber accuracy VS level bomber accuracy was never even raised. :rolleyes:

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 24
- 1/15/2003 2:25:49 AM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline
quote:

What I want explained is why all level bombers seem to perform as it they are B17-G's


I want to know if the B-17's the Allies had at the time in Australia at the beginning of scenario 17 were B-17E's, or if they were still using C and D models, without tail guns. That would make a difference in their defensive performance.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 25
- 1/15/2003 2:50:31 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		In my current new PBEM game as Japan, in May 1942, my squadron of Zeros is shooting down Hudsons at a good rate -- raids of three often have one or two shot down and others damaged for only a plane lost or damaged. Remember also many of those bombers come from Australia -- it's a LONG flight, and damaged planes often crash. (For the same reason, I'm hesitant to let my bombers from Rabul attack PM -- sure, they can do it, but there better be carriers or something in port!)

I'll post exact losses here if anyone is interested.

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 26
- 1/15/2003 3:00:41 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Remember also many of those bombers come from Australia -- it's a LONG flight, and damaged planes often crash. (For the same reason, I'm hesitant to let my bombers from Rabul attack PM -- sure, they can do it, but there better be carriers or something in port!)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Quit. Operational losses are often damaged planes that don't make it back to base after long-distance raids. So, damaging large numbers of B17's, especially if they are flying all the way from Australia, will result is some after-action losses!

_____________________________


(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 27
- 1/15/2003 3:42:19 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorthStar
[B]1. For a lot of people, the whole point of a game like this is to play with different tactics that COULD have been used. To restrict the game to only tactics that WERE used would, IMHO, be too limiting. ............ [/B][/QUOTE]

The problem here is that while allowing doctrines that COULD have been used, the design of the game seems to make the results not comparable to those doctrines which deviate from what actually happened. And as you have seeen from the forum everything (even things that did happen) are subject to different points of view and conjecture.

So perhaps allowing heavy bombers to bomb ships at altitudes lower than what they normally did in this theater should be allowed BUT with proportional consequences. Further, it seems to many that those consequence, as now programmed, are not proportional so folks are just suggesting house rules or asking Matrix to either - make the consequences go along with the action or limit the action because the consequences cannot be programmed/determined.:)

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 28
- 1/15/2003 4:08:38 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		While on this topic, would someone care to explain why a strike that can't locate it's target is not hit by flak anyways when the target happens to be a base hex ... Just cause you can't see through the clouds to bomb on target doesn't mean the guys on the ground are not shooting flak at you :D

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 29
- 1/16/2003 4:19:13 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Yes, the B17s are way to accurate as are the mediums when bombing at altitude.

I generally send my bombers in at 1000 feet with great results, but casualties are high.

I even send my B17s in against ships at that height with great sucess ( this really should not happen)

Bear in mind that as Allied forces gained superiority and skill, bombing attacks went in a lower altitudes with much greater sucess. Skip bombing and treetop bombing was pretty much the norm as allied fighter superiority grew.

In the game, once my bombers have gained sufficient experience, I send them in at 100 feet against ships. The results are mind blowing, as well as my own casualties high. I find that after a few sucessful missions my bomber squadrons need to stand down due to drastic morale and fatigue accumulation. But you should see those transports burn!!!

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HannoMeier)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields Page: [1] 2   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

3.813