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: Heavy Bomber Losses

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Heavy Bomber Losses Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:05:31 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen


Actually Frag, you are making a claim. You are claiming that the inflated loss ratios in the game ARE accurate. I am saying they are not. Both are "claims" which require support to be believable. I'll see what I can do to back mine up tonight.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 151
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:12:56 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Actually Frag, you are making a claim. You are claiming that the inflated loss ratios in the game ARE accurate. I am saying they are not. Both are "claims" which require support to be believable. I'll see what I can do to back mine up tonight.


Ok, want to play it that way eh?

My *claim* is that these air battles never even took place therefore the results have no historical data to base the "in game" results against. This means they are neither correct nor incorrect.

The same holds true for a lot of threads discussing things. They never actually happened therefore the results have no basis in fact so they cannot be anything other then the opinion of a collection of folks of what might have happened.

The latest batch of PH threads are a classic examply of this. According to history, the USA made every mistake humanly possible to aid the Japanese in pulling off the results they got ... this is akin to them rolling a perfect string of snake eyes on the dice. Realistically, this is a one in a million result yet look at all the complaints that suddenly people are not sinking 6 BB's

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 152
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:16:32 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. You tossed down a gauntlet to me and in going through the mission logs for the USAAF (which lists every single flight flown) I don't see any group level activity which is the complaint here. If someone wants to provide data that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.

When questioning something, two things are required:

a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.
b) results in game showing the large difference in results consistantly.

When not providing a), there is little point tossing off 5 pages worth of posts about b) as it is just conjecture.

I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen


Hi Frag,

As I originally mentioned when I started this topic I just wondered if they were too high or not. As mentioned I don't have detailed figures to hand of PTO. I was basing my thoughts/queries on the durability of heavy bombers per se and my knowledge of ETO. Based upon that I carried out my tests on unescorted bomber raids.

I'm not here to p*ss peeps off or to moan for the sake of moaning. As i've postulated above if you and the other mods, testers, makers think all is well and good considering the historical situation of PTO then thats cool i'll leave it well alone.

In short, all i've wanted to know is the A2A model correct based for heavies vs fighters based upon historical principles? If so great. If you think it needs tweaking i'm here to help by doing tests etc if needed.

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 153
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:29:52 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		We dont think your pissing and moaning Steve. We have plenty of examples of those that would qualify as pissing and moaning. I'd say we're experts at telling the difference by now



_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 154
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:37:46 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. You tossed down a gauntlet to me and in going through the mission logs for the USAAF (which lists every single flight flown) I don't see any group level activity which is the complaint here. If someone wants to provide data that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.

When questioning something, two things are required:

a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.
b) results in game showing the large difference in results consistantly.

When not providing a), there is little point tossing off 5 pages worth of posts about b) as it is just conjecture.

I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen


Hi Frag,

As I originally mentioned when I started this topic I just wondered if they were too high or not. As mentioned I don't have detailed figures to hand of PTO. I was basing my thoughts/queries on the durability of heavy bombers per se and my knowledge of ETO. Based upon that I carried out my tests on unescorted bomber raids.

I'm not here to p*ss peeps off or to moan for the sake of moaning. As i've postulated above if you and the other mods, testers, makers think all is well and good considering the historical situation of PTO then thats cool i'll leave it well alone.

In short, all i've wanted to know is the A2A model correct based for heavies vs fighters based upon historical principles? If so great. If you think it needs tweaking i'm here to help by doing tests etc if needed.

Regards,

Steven



I understand Steven, this is the basis for many such threads. Someone does something and feels it to be too high or too low when they get the result.

The key to finding the answer is to dig into history and see if that type of activity happened. If it did happen, and it happened more then once can an expected pattern of results be drawn for the purposes of tuning?

In this case, we are dealing with large raids of bombers against protected targets. Historically it did not appear to happen in a timeframe that would provide valid data. Historically, no commander with half a brain would risk aircraft and aircrews in such a manner (which is why the game is programmed to have morale plummet into the 20's).

Now we get to what should the results be and this is a much tougher question as there is no historical data available. You have on one side that the heavies were capable of taking a great deal of abuse and still making it back to base (the fact that many never flew again is removed from the history books due to how the USA counted operational losses).

You have on the other side that Japan while not being the smartest kid on the block for starting a war they could not win did have aircraft and pilots capable of shooting down aircraft given enough time and warning. It was not their best skill certainly, but that also does not mean that the Allies could have simply stopped producing fighters and built nothing but heavy bombers as they were more effective then fighters at shooting Japanese down.

Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, one picks what seems reasonable for what is actually a really silly action. (sending large numbers of slow bombers against protected targets).

a) Morale plummets
b) neither side takes excessive losses

Now we get into the second part of the problem:

Players ignore the fact that their morale has plummeted and *continue* this silly action. Morale can't plummet further as it has already cratered. Now what? The only option is to cause losses.

Decreasing the losses is effectively a request to reward silly play. Why would you want to reward silly play?

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 155
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:37:51 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Hi Nik,

I should think you guys are

Is it worth me doing more tests on this or does all seem cool at your end?

P.S. I have just found some stats on USAAF wbiste on number of sorties in PTO. I was shocked at hoe few heavy bomber sorties were flown in general!

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 156
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:41:20 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		Balls.

"Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce"

I believe the number mentioned was "64+ AC". Attacks on Rabaul. Operation Galvanic. Philippines prior to being invaded. Java. Ie Shima from Saipan/Tianian. Those are just off the top of my head, and none of these are exactly unknown or obscure. Rabaul probably the best example of large scale hvy/medium bomber attacks in the teeth of fierce Japanese resistence from fighters and both ship/ground based AA...far worse than anything discussed here, and the casualties were nowhere as high IIRC.

"Small scale unescorted raids"...went on all war, in every corner of the theater. Extremely common. Anything from single ship to virtually any number you care to choose, and in any role you care to choose. Snooper, interdiction NI, photo recon, bombing...whatever. Could start with the long range air attacks on GC by B-17s prior to the Marines landing if you want a specific instance, that's familiar and easily ref'ed. Complete with Japanese interceptors (even RUFES! Which incidentally DID NOT achieve an 11-1 kill/loss ratio against B-17s in actual low/mid-altitude combat...more like 1-1 when a RUFE accidentally rammed a B-17 on its way down IIRC).

And Mike...it doesn't matter what historical figures you come up with, or what the results of testing are. The end result will just be more misdirection coupled with willful ignorance.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 157
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:49:22 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Hi Frag,

I respect what you say and to be honest from the data i've just seen on sorties of heavy bombers i'm beginning to think maybe there wasn't a lot of large unescorted heavy bomber missions in PTO.

I see what you're saying its kinda hard to model something that didn't happen historically yet us as players can attempt to play ahistorically = results that seem skewed since predicted results are based on an ahistorical situation.

I certainly saw morale plummet in these missions and losses on the 2nd consecutive day seemed to rocket.

This has been a good eye opener for me. In my Allied PBEM I will not be conducting a lot of large unescorted heavy bomber raids.

One thing has made me realise though is if you need any testing done I actually quite enjoyed it. So fire away if you want anything tested (financial compensation would logically follow )

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 158
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:50:32 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Well if your asking me personally.....I'd recommend not knocking yourself out with more tests unless you really enjoy it. Lots of tests on this have already been done and posted internally and the issue is admitedly a complex one because as Frag and another intuitive poster already commented, tweaking bomber losses affects game play on a number of different levels. I recall the UV days and the things that players could do with unescorted raids.

That said, as far as the losses themselves are concerned. my opinion can be found in the AAR sub-forum. (beer wars)

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 159
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:02:58 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Well if your asking me personally.....I'd recommend not knocking yourself out with more tests unless you really enjoy it. Lots of tests on this have already been done and posted internally and the issue is admitedly a complex one because as Frag and another intuitive poster already commented, tweaking bomber losses affects game play on a number of different levels. I recall the UV days and the things that players could do with unescorted raids.

That said, as far as the losses themselves are concerned. my opinion can be found in the AAR sub-forum. (beer wars)


Hi Nik,

As I say i'm now, after a bit of searching, beginning to think large unescorted heavy bomber raids were not the norm in PTO.

I'm willing to do testing on other stuff if need (provided financial compensation follows )

P.S. I've read your AAR and i'm sceptical of your views. I quote "Dont worry......forces heading towards Pearl, Karachi and Sydney even as we speak!". Are you insane?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 160
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:16:41 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

As I say i'm now, after a bit of searching, beginning to think large unescorted heavy bomber raids were not the norm in PTO.



They wern't. Largely due to the troubles keeping the trickle of B-17's operational, something that proved very hard to do in Oz and the South Pacific during 1942.

quote:


I'm willing to do testing on other stuff if need (provided financial compensation follows )


LoL... me first.

quote:


P.S. I've read your AAR and i'm sceptical of your views. I quote "Dont worry......forces heading towards Pearl, Karachi and Sydney even as we speak!". Are you insane?


3 years of around here would make anybody insane Look on the bright side....dont think Ron/Kaiser have lost a B-17 to air to air yet.


_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 161
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:20:42 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

LoL... me first.


I'll fight you for it

quote:


3 years of around here would make anybody insane Look on the bright side....dont think Ron/Kaiser have lost a B-17 to air to air yet.



What no A2A losses to B17. Must be flawed

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 162
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:28:14 PM   
doktorblood


Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline 		THis isn't a one-way issue. If you want to see a real slaughter why don't you test an unescorted Japanese bomber strike and see what you get!

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 163
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:31:34 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'll fight you for it



Ok.....you fly a wiraway and i'll fly an A6m2 Brado. Either that or i get Tankerace's photon equipped Boise.


quote:


What no A2A losses to B17. Must be flawed



Definately. Check out the massive ASW losses for Jan 42 I just posted too. Hopelessly broken.


_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 164
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:32:11 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		We all know what will happen with that. They will and should get slaughtered. A Betty ain't a Fort

(in reply to doktorblood)
Post #: 165
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:33:44 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Ok.....you fly a wiraway and i'll fly an A6m2 Brado. Either that or i get Tankerace's photon equipped Boise.


You have the Boise i'll have a Death Star. Fair?

quote:


Definately. Check out the massive ASW losses for Jan 42 I just posted too. Hopelessly broken.



I'm gonna get angry

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 166
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:45:10 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

You have the Boise i'll have a Death Star. Fair?



Definately. The range of the Mark II Photon torpedo far exceeds that of a Kate and is more accurate. + it makes a much cooler sound when it launches.

quote:


I'm gonna get angry


Does your skin turn green? yikes.....


_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 167
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 7:47:35 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

We all know what will happen with that. They will and should get slaughtered. A Betty ain't a Fort


True, but Betties wern't nearly as easy to bring down as most people think. Check out Frank's and Lundstrom's work on Guad. (in reference to the standard G4M raids on Lunga airfield)



_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 168
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 8:08:52 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hey Nik

for your Duel, you talking about a flight sim or in this game ?

in a good flight sim, I think the Wira has a pretty good chance of winning (unless the Zero pilot wants to fly like a Jerry, and use his climb and dive advantage)

the Wira for early Allied planes, may be one of the few that could move with the Zero (speed and climb it loses, but most JA pilots did not believe in that style of fighting, they liked to slow the fight down)

quote:

Ok.....you fly a wiraway and i'll fly an A6m2 Brado.


if in the game, you win

:)

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 169
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 8:22:03 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I'll fly em like a KB pilot...and bounce him from above. My 20mm Brados chugging hot slug into Speedy's not so speedy aircraft. Boiler plate armor is no match for my rightious ammo, signed personally by Tojo himself.

With NiN's head like a hole playing in my headphones, i am unbeatable. fear me.





_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 170
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 8:28:47 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		Regarding the ETO Luftwaffe losses to bomber gunners were practically non-existent; basically all of their losses were to escorting fighters.

For morale purposes it was basically decided to give USAAF bomber gunners all the claims they wanted with basically no investigation or attempt at accuracy; one FW190 blows up attacking a bomber box, all 20+ bomber gunners shooting at it claimed a kill and they all were given a kill.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 171
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 8:32:52 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hi Nik
well I a flight simmer, in fact I sort am a beta tester for a few, with a good model, that could be a fun fight, and I think in the end, the results would fool a lot of people, even more so, if they were cocky going into it, But, find a sim with a good model of the Wiraway :)

(oh, don't try to bounce too much with that plane, it don't have the wings for it, and the 20s on that are much better used in a slow, tail hugging chase, not in a high speed blitz)

but on with the show



I am not getting the same kind of numbers you guys are getting with the heavies ?

now my game is Allied vs the AI JP

screen shot shows my losses, it is 9-21-42 (started 8-3-42)

almost dayly raids on Rabaul, other then shutting this or that unit down for rest as needed, I think the 24's losses don't show on the screen, but 5 have been lost to air to air combat (and think most of them should be from Mandalay, not Rebaul

my 24s have shot down 8 planes, my 17s have shot down 6






so... I am showing what 28 losses to air to air combat, add in the 5 for the 24s, so... 33 for 14

a shade over 2-1 for the bad guys

but I have knocked out most of the Betty units in the Solomans and more then a few Zero units, so I think the trade is well worth the losses

HARD_Sarge

LOL edited for adding mistake :)


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 5/9/2005 8:38:47 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 172
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 9:04:10 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Hi Nik
well I a flight simmer, in fact I sort am a beta tester for a few, with a good model, that could be a fun fight, and I think in the end, the results would fool a lot of people, even more so, if they were cocky going into it, But, find a sim with a good model of the Wiraway :)

(oh, don't try to bounce too much with that plane, it don't have the wings for it, and the 20s on that are much better used in a slow, tail hugging chase, not in a high speed blitz)



A machine is only as good as the man behind it I always say.

I wont bounce anymore than the KB's did....which was often My trouble is that in flight sim's my bounces often turn into Lawn darts....especially with Me-109's.




_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 173
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 10:14:14 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		LOL Nik.

Firstly, yes i'll turn green.

Secondly, I meant THE DEATH STAR (Star Wars).

I win.

Sarge - your numbers are bound to be off. I know from your BTR playing you are far too good as Allies

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 174
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 10:26:48 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Geez, I guess somebody never heard of Fighter Escort.

It's funny nobody complains when unescorted Japanese bombers get hammered!

(in reply to ltfightr)
Post #: 175
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 10:32:19 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		With all due respect thats a bit of a silly statement Pad152.

We all know Forts, Libs etc are for more durable than Betties etc.

Obviously its much better with escort.

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 176
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 10:46:12 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		uh uh.....i'll just switch from Boise to an X-wing. one proton torpedo. No more death star. Forget Yamato.....what was the biggest white elephant ever known?

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 177
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 10:54:50 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Yeah, after the first one blew up you'd think they'd put some kind of grating over those openings. If the Empire just had an OSHA-like agency, they'd have demanded it.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 178
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 10:57:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		nope, they just built Musashi-star.

Or maybe we should call her Shinano-star since she wasn't fully completed when attacked. Damage control was lax and the crew left open spaces large enough to pilot a stock freighter through....

_____________________________


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 179
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/10/2005 12:30:05 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Let's face it, they lost to furballs w/ no discernable reproductive capability and a fleet w/ a squid for an admiral. The empire deserved to lose.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Heavy Bomber Losses Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.750