Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY
About WITP way of modeling Level Air Bombing ( especially of tactical target ):

- We get too much hit because:

- Every plane roll to bomb with his own aiming wich is totally innacurate as in history they are pack bombing.
- Every single bomb get a roll wich is also innacurate as it greatly help multi load over single load. ( 2 x 50 kg aren't more destructive than 1x100 kg, I am not even sure they really have more chance to hit... ).


Simple way of solving it:

- Have the whole mission bomb as a whole:

- Each Squadron leader make a roll to see if he get on the target. This determine the percentile of his squadron bombing that are effective.
- Calculate the total amount of bomb load delivered ( in Tons !! ) for ALL squadrons.
- Apply modifier for dispersion, altitude, precision, kind of target.
- Cross reference on a table to give the amount of damage to this target kind for this amount of explosive ( apply a random factor, also seriously crush the nuimbers at top of the table so the more the lesser ).
- Randomly determine the amount of ship hits based on the volume of fire, the number of ships and historical stats ( port level and/or fort being used to determine the amount of protection the ships have ) and also randomly determine the kind of bomb that do hit the ship.

I guess this is the best way we can get "historical" result on thoses operation.

And I think some of the routines could be get back from BTR.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Some of us last spring tried to nix this port attack feature. I was shot bown in flames!

There were only a handful of these attacks made successully during the war. In WITP they are a common happening. Japanese fanboys cried foul. Now you are seeing results for Allied strikes. So what do you think now? I suppose you'll want it changed when these results start happening to your favorite side.

Now, are there any moderators out there willing to rethink a restructuring of this feature?

I remember this was hopped up because of ships hiding in ports in UV. Now ports within range of any bomber aircraft are a severe liability. Enough said. I remember talking about this last spring till I was blue in the face.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I wish I could remember where some of those old threads were Ron. Mostly it was people complaining about disbanding ships into ports to hide from airstikes. This is the result of the effort to fix that option.

Well, they fixed it good alright.

How about not being able to disband ships in a port that is level 5 or under. That would fix it! Then only the really big ports could be used for disbanding or repairs

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Sounds good!

Now try convincing someone to fix it!

Good luck. I had enough of this debate last spring!

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

Raver, completely agree with the *numbers* but the problem is the effect, not the numbers.

You simply cannot get that number of aircraft lined up to bomb a bunch of ships. B-29's are just too big, even B-17's used in those numbers are fantasy. This is one of those cases where the numbers just don't give the truth.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

Raver, completely agree with the *numbers* but the problem is the effect, not the numbers.

You simply cannot get that number of aircraft lined up to bomb a bunch of ships. B-29's are just too big, even B-17's used in those numbers are fantasy. This is one of those cases where the numbers just don't give the truth.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Hmm, what about this:

Doctor the loadout in this kind of manner when on any form of ship attack (including ports)

B-17 instead of 12x 500lb goes in with 2x 2000 lb
B-24 instead of 16x 500lb goes in with 3x 2000 lb
B-29 instead of 40x 500lb goes in with 4x 4000 lb

This has a double effect. It dramatically reduces the bombs dropped yet should any of those bombs hit, they are going to be devastating. The problem is this obviously requires coding.

Leo, if you want to run some more tests, hack the planes up in this manner and rerun them.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Again there were much fewer hits by B-29's at 30000 ft compared to 10000 ft (i.e. similar to my previous test when they were bombing warships) but still there are, IMHO, way too many of them. The 30000 ft is almost 10 km and transport ships is very very very small target of 100 m x 15 m at MAX...

The only thing I immensely liked was the fact that there was no hits at night from 30000 ft... at least something...

So... (again) using all my tests against warships altogether I think that Matrix/2By3 should revisit the bombing routine against ships that are in port...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

#1
What about 2 engine bombers (in my tests I proved that B-25 was equally deadly in port attacks)?

#2
What about "Normal" / "Extended" range differences?

#3
What about attack on port (i.e. facilities) itself?

quote:

35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000

quote:

Mr. Frag, how about weighing in on the torpedo bombing issue re ports?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
This is just one of those things where if people are reasonable, the results are reasonable.

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

quote:

Well, there's your problem right there Mr.Frag. You are assuming that people can be reasonable in a war.

quote:

This is affected a little bit by the fact that the players are unable to dictate the loadout of the a/c - otherwise the torp attack on ports could be avoided by player agreement. Is it possible to get a bombs/torps button for torpedo capable aircraft?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
No reason to attack a port unless you are gunning for ships.

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

quote:

I thought the concensus was that port attacks were the best way to weaken CD gun defenses?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

This is affected a little bit by the fact that the players are unable to dictate the loadout of the a/c - otherwise the torp attack on ports could be avoided by player agreement. Is it possible to get a bombs/torps button for torpedo capable aircraft?

No reason to attack a port unless you are gunning for ships.

Playing the devils advocate, you can not expect Japan to sit back while Allies drop clouds of 500 lb bombs on their ports and not send their betty's at your ports. Either avoid ports or agree to no restrictions.

quote:


If you think that the bettys and nells are going to win the game on ship sinkings in port, you just have not played the game long enough to see the truth. They are the #1 cause of japanese pilot shortages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

The whole problem here is that most folks never grasped the abstract nature of "Ports" in the game, they always default their thinking and arguments to slips, berths cranes, warehouses and fancy dry-docks… obstructed approaches etc, then use this as a argument that torpedo attacks should not be allowed... Guess what folks none of that exists in our ports. All of these things are reflected in additional capabilities like repair yards, ship yards etc...

The port size ratings are simply a capability rating of how much cargo can pass thru it per turn and has nothing to do with what amenities are contained in the port.

Remember in game terms the "Port" and its benefits are also spread out over the whole 60 mile hex to include offshore anchorages as well as the port itself.

So when a port reaches size 3 you can now disband your ships into the "Port" making them immune to submarines and we have players using the tactic of hiding hundreds of ships in a "port" to defend them against submarines and now want them protected from air attack as well???? Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

The port hex is 60 miles, and no port in existence anywhere in the world even today is that big...., Players start hiding hundreds of ships in a 60 mile hex but want that whole 60 mile hex to be considered immune to attack because a tiny portion of the hex actually contains a real port... Come on...

quote:


The whole problem here is that most folks never grasped the abstract nature of "Ports" in the game...