Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room



Message


VSWG -> Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 7:56:48 PM)

I've tested the effect of Allied LB set to 100 % naval search (NS) on enemy shipping in a short scenario (CHS Guadalcanal - thanks, irrelevant!). Basically I wanted to test the feasibility of new house rule regarding 4Es on anti-shipping missions: 4Es may not be set to naval attack, only to naval search. As probably everyone has already experienced, planes set to naval search often hit enemy ships (as seen in the operations report: B-17 spots ship XY - Ship XY hit!). I wanted to test how often these hits occur.

I loaded the scenario (head to head), stood down all planes and disbanded all ships. Then I moved 250 LB to Port Moresby (a mix of (mostly) B-17Es, some Liberators, B-25s and B-26s), and moved three Japanese task forces into the Bismarck Sea, 4-5 hexes away from Port Moresby.

TF 1: 10 AKs, escorted
TF 2: 10 AKs/APs + a couple of PCs as escort
TF 3: 3 CAs, 3 CLs + 4 DDs.

Port Moresby had 50.000+ supplies, a level 6 air field, 300+ aviation support, but no air HQ.

Before I start posting the results, please keep in mind that this is a complete fantasy scenario: 250 level bomers (mostly 4Es) flying naval search from a base and attacking several TFs that are without air cover... How often does a scenario like this occur in a PBEM?

During the first month, nothing happened - not surprisingly, since all squadrons had experience levels around 50. All enemy TFs were spotted. I noticed that the operations report almost never changed: three reports about the spotted TFs, and 1-3 reports identified Japanese ships. Pretty weak for 250 planes flying naval search... BTW, the intel screen reported about 300 sorties per day, so in the AM and PM phase approx. 150 bombers took off.

I decided to monitor the experience levels until the LB started to hit something.

RESULT #1: 100 Naval Search is a very good way to increase the experience of your bomber pilots: not only do the squadrons gain 1 point of experience every couple of turns (on average every 3rd turn), but also fatigue went down (never more than 5, flying at max range and 6000 feet), morale climbed to 99, and lets not forget that they were all busy spotting Japanese TFs. Pretty good package, IMO... Oh, I almost forgot: operational losses during these weeks were: 0. [;)]

RESULT #2: There's no penalty hit for LB flying naval search at 100 feet.

The first hit occurred at 64 experience (1 B-17E flying at 6000 feet), but the AK was only slightly damaged: 5 sys, 7 float, 3 fires. I scuttled this ship (and all damaged ships that followed) immediately, so that damaged ships wouldn't skew the results. During the next weeks, when experience was between 60 and 70, only one or two hits were scored every week. The average damage per single hit was 40/5/5. Once a DD was hit, otherwise only transports. So far, with experience below 70 and at 6000 feet, the results were negligible for 250 LB. I decided to skip bomb (altitude 100 feet) - with similar result (although flak losses didn't occur at this altitude either).

Out of a whim I decided to split the bomber groups (so far 5 bomber groups and 1 squadron were flying naval search). Suddenly the same amount of planes, now flying in 16 squadrons, scored 5-6 hits with skip bombing every turn! [X(] That's an increase by approx. 1000 %... All these hits were scored on transports, the cruiser TF was never hit.

RESULT #3: The number of air units, not the number of planes, determine the amount of hits while flying naval search. I guess that each air unit has separate dice rolls for hitting ships, and that these dice rolls do not take the amount of planes into account. [:(] Still, this would only explain a threefold increase in hits. I suppose that more, but smaller air units are also much more effective in spotting TFs/ships, and that this also increases the number of hits.

RESULT #4 (derived, not tested): A certain number of planes in small air units can spot ships/TFs more effectively than the same amount of planes in fewer air units.

By now most squadrons had experience between 65 and 75, so I decided to increase altitude to 6000 again. 1-2 hits were scored during the following days - much less than with skip bombing, but a lot more than with exp. around 60.

RESULT #5: Skip bombing (65-75 exp.) is approx. 3 times more effective than bombing at 6000 feet.

RESULT #6: 100 % Naval Search produces almost no hits below 65 exp unless you use hundreds of bombers. Even with 70+ exp., it is still far less effective than naval attack. Not really surprising, since the primary mission is to spot, not to attack.

Finally, I wanted to know if I could get my LB to attack the cruiser TF. I retreated all transports, and set the bombers (still in squadrons) to skip bomb. Not more than 1 hit per turn occured during the next days.

RESULT #7: Bombers on 100 % NS almost never attack war ships. Reasons could be: higher AA, higher cruise/max speed, higher crew experience, higher maneuver rating,...

Then I split the cruiser TF into smaller TFs, with 1-2 ships each. Number of hits per turn increased significantly.

RESULT #8: More TFs -> more hits.

So far I haven't answered the original question: can 100 % NS replace naval attack missions for Allied LBs? I became distracted when splitting my squadrons produced fundamentally different results. Furthermore, I want to test a second house rule before I suggest to replace NA with 100 % NS: do Nells/Bettys use torpedoes when attacking during the NS routine? [;)]

Anyway, I wanted to share my findings so far...




rogueusmc -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 8:06:17 PM)

Wow...have some time on your hands did ya?...[:D]




Barb -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 8:12:47 PM)

It looks like number of hits is straightly connected to number of "contacts" (plane-TF).
The more targets and more units flying and more exp they are, the more hits will be scored.
Also 100ft is more accurate then 6000ft.




Historiker -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 9:38:15 PM)

skip bombing is at 100 ft?




Boozecamp -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 9:49:33 PM)

Nice work!

Just wanted to add one thing: I agree that no 4E naval attacks are a good house rule, but with one exception - USN Liberator squadrons. I think Navy squadrons should be allowed to fly naval attack missions. I'm not sure of their training but I assume that anti-shipping strikes were emphasized a lot more than say, USAAF training.





VSWG -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 10:44:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Wow...have some time on your hands did ya?...[:D]

Oh hush... [:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

It looks like number of hits is straightly connected to number of "contacts" (plane-TF).
The more targets and more units flying and more exp they are, the more hits will be scored.
Also 100ft is more accurate then 6000ft.

Exactly. Sadly the number of air units seems to be more important than the number of planes. I bet if those 250 LB would be in 100 different air units (fragments) they would sink those TFs in a single turn. So this system can be 'gamed'...[:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

skip bombing is at 100 ft?

From the manual:

quote:

Planes flying a Naval Attack Mission with an altitude of 100 feet will skip bomb and strafe
their target. Skip bombing is a very accurate way to bomb a ship if the experience of the
pilots is over 60, but the accuracy falls when their experience is below 60 and very
dramatically below 50. Of course, flak from ships will be very intense at 100 feet.




VSWG -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 10:52:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Boozecamp

Nice work!

Just wanted to add one thing: I agree that no 4E naval attacks are a good house rule, but with one exception - USN Liberator squadrons. I think Navy squadrons should be allowed to fly naval attack missions. I'm not sure of their training but I assume that anti-shipping strikes were emphasized a lot more than say, USAAF training.

Sounds like a good house rule. OTOH, as long as Nells/Bettys carry an unlimited amount of torpedoes many players like to balance this with LB set to naval attack (I'm one of them).

That's why I'm interested in testing Jap. TB set to 100 % NS, too. If this reduces the number of TT hits to a historic rate then I suggest limiting Allied LB to NS, too. It would be really nice to get rid of the 'zones of death' around Japanese level 4 bases AND to adjust the anti-shipping role of Allied LB to historic levels. IMO this would make the game much more accurate (although I fear that in such a case 'UberCAP' will reduce the vulnerability of TFs against air strikes too much).




trollelite -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/6/2007 10:53:56 PM)

Hey, Herrn VSWG, please watch your opponent suche post. Allied 4-e is dangeous even only set to naval search.

CHS scenario 160 already reduced aerial torpedo accuracy by 25%, they are not as fatal as before, especially Japanese 2 engines.




niceguy2005 -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 1:27:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

skip bombing is at 100 ft?

Wow, that youtube vid is a beautiful editing job.




okami -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 4:26:00 AM)

In a game I am playing the enemy has his bombers on naval search and I have a transport fleet at Palembang that is loading resources. The airbase at Palembang is level 4 I have 72 fighters on 90% Cap and yet almost daily one of my ships is hit and no intercept of these naval searches occur. Although he has torpedoe bombers on naval search I have never taken a torpedoe attack by this method. Granted they are Dutch and British planes so that might be why I have not seen torpedoes. The problem is no interception. VSWG have you tried this in your tests to see if indeed you can intercept these missions?




bradfordkay -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 8:55:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Hey, Herrn VSWG, please watch your opponent suche post. Allied 4-e is dangeous even only set to naval search.

CHS scenario 160 already reduced aerial torpedo accuracy by 25%, they are not as fatal as before, especially Japanese 2 engines.


It seems to make no difference, and Nikademas has also mentioned that torpedo accuracy is a unimportant factor in the game.




herwin -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 9:52:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

It looks like number of hits is straightly connected to number of "contacts" (plane-TF).
The more targets and more units flying and more exp they are, the more hits will be scored.
Also 100ft is more accurate then 6000ft.



Consistent with what I've been seeing.




herwin -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 9:54:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Hey, Herrn VSWG, please watch your opponent suche post. Allied 4-e is dangeous even only set to naval search.

CHS scenario 160 already reduced aerial torpedo accuracy by 25%, they are not as fatal as before, especially Japanese 2 engines.


It seems to make no difference, and Nikademas has also mentioned that torpedo accuracy is a unimportant factor in the game.


Unlike reality...




Honda -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 12:59:24 PM)

I have never in my life (including UV) seen a plane equiped with a torp as a primary weapon score a hit on naval search. I belive testing this would prove a waste of time. Should my experiance prove faulty and you get .000001% hits it's sill negligable enough as if no hits are scored. That goes for Mavis/Emilys, Betty/Nells, Catalinas etc...Kates however may have had some success (ok, I just blew my hypothesis[8|]) but still much less than Vals.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 3:59:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

In a game I am playing the enemy has his bombers on naval search and I have a transport fleet at Palembang that is loading resources. The airbase at Palembang is level 4 I have 72 fighters on 90% Cap and yet almost daily one of my ships is hit and no intercept of these naval searches occur. Although he has torpedoe bombers on naval search I have never taken a torpedoe attack by this method. Granted they are Dutch and British planes so that might be why I have not seen torpedoes. The problem is no interception. VSWG have you tried this in your tests to see if indeed you can intercept these missions?


Thats one downfall with the air combat system is that CAP doesnt protect from naval search and really it is ineffective against transports.

However, this thread does go to prove what I have ALWAYS said about 4E bombers on naval search achieving near historical results vs naval attack missions that are way over historical.




rtrapasso -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 4:20:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

I have never in my life (including UV) seen a plane equiped with a torp as a primary weapon score a hit on naval search. I belive testing this would prove a waste of time. Should my experiance prove faulty and you get .000001% hits it's sill negligable enough as if no hits are scored. That goes for Mavis/Emilys, Betty/Nells, Catalinas etc...Kates however may have had some success (ok, I just blew my hypothesis[8|]) but still much less than Vals.


It has been stated that planes ONLY carry bombs on patrol missions in the game. I've never seen a torp hit on patrol segment in WITP either.




Nomad -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 6:58:22 PM)

Out of the must read thread I found this from Mike Wood:

Hello...

Having written the code for this, I have some insight into how it works. Bombers carry the outload listed, such as 4x500 lb or 1xtorpedo.

If attacking land based targets, they carry the same thing. Such as 4x500 lb or 1xtorpedo=2x500 lb (the code trades torpedoes for bombs). The aircraft maximum load value is only used for calculation of airfield size needed from which to operate.

If scheduled to carry 500lb GP bombs and if the plane normally carries at least four of them and if the crew has at least the minimum required experience and if the crew makes an experience roll and if the squadron leader makes a skill roll and if the airfield is large enough and if there is enough supply, then the aircraft may exchange each 4x500lb GP bombs for 2x1000lb GP bombs. If the crew has more experience and passes a harder roll and if the base is at least a certain size and has more supply and is carrying at least 4x1000lb GP bomb, then the aircraft may exchange each 4x1000lb GP bombs for 2x2000lb bomb.

Patrol aircraft on naval search commonly carry torpedoes. Those same aircraft, if on anti-submarine patrol exchange those torpedoes for bombs. Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

{my bolding }

He states that patrol aircraft should carry torpedeos on Naval Search, but bombs on ASW. You don't get a message stating what a ship is hit with, just that "S-122 is hit" or something like that.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 8:33:45 PM)

Whats the date on that post? [;)]




VSWG -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 8:41:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Although he has torpedoe bombers on naval search I have never taken a torpedoe attack by this method. Granted they are Dutch and British planes so that might be why I have not seen torpedoes.

AND

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

I have never in my life (including UV) seen a plane equiped with a torp as a primary weapon score a hit on naval search.

AND

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I've never seen a torp hit on patrol segment in WITP either.

Just to clarify: I have never SEEN a torpedo hit with naval search myself - simply because you do not see anything. The message in the operations report is always the same "B-17 has spotted ship XY" followed by "Ship XY is reported HIT" The report does not mentioned what device was dropped. The only way to determine the device is to look at the damage: high sys, low flt damage indicate a bomb hit (as in the test above); medium sys, high flt damage indicate a torpedo hit. Of course there is no way to be absolutely sure it really was a torpedo hit...




Helpless -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 9:13:06 PM)

quote:

but the AK was only slightly damaged: 5 sys, 7 float, 3 fires. I scuttled this ship


[X(] how did you do that?

interesting tests..




VSWG -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 9:16:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

but the AK was only slightly damaged: 5 sys, 7 float, 3 fires. I scuttled this ship


[X(] how did you do that?

interesting tests..

Erm, I probably didn't, since slightly damaged ships cannot be scuttled. What I wanted to say was: I scuttled all heavily damaged ships, and retreated the ships with minor damage.




rtrapasso -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 9:19:48 PM)

Right - no real way to tell what hit, but you can guess.

Despite the post quoted from Michael Wood, i've seen other posts by other devs (iirc) that contradict this.

Also, putting torps on patrol aircraft would contradict pretty much what occurred in reality: planes did not PATROL with torpedoes (until there were specialized ASW torpedoes late in the war (not seen in WITP)) - they did patrol with bombs, and went on strikes with torps. Torpedoes were too expensive and delicate (not to mention rare) to be putting on patrol planes - and they would drastically cut down on patrol range.

However, i would be very interested to see what happens in any test you make.




herwin -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/7/2007 10:38:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Although he has torpedoe bombers on naval search I have never taken a torpedoe attack by this method. Granted they are Dutch and British planes so that might be why I have not seen torpedoes.

AND

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

I have never in my life (including UV) seen a plane equiped with a torp as a primary weapon score a hit on naval search.

AND

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I've never seen a torp hit on patrol segment in WITP either.

Just to clarify: I have never SEEN a torpedo hit with naval search myself - simply because you do not see anything. The message in the operations report is always the same "B-17 has spotted ship XY" followed by "Ship XY is reported HIT" The report does not mentioned what device was dropped. The only way to determine the device is to look at the damage: high sys, low flt damage indicate a bomb hit (as in the test above); medium sys, high flt damage indicate a torpedo hit. Of course there is no way to be absolutely sure it really was a torpedo hit...


I was wondering why a couple of those hits (by PBYs) resulted in nearly 100 SYS damage. Much clearer now.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/8/2007 12:43:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Of course there is no way to be absolutely sure it really was a torpedo hit...



Actually this isnt true, especially in a test mode. Let a ship sink on its own due to damage from a search plane hit and you will see what caused the fatal blow on the sunk ships report.




Mike Wood -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/8/2007 1:32:26 AM)

Hello...

As of today, 7 October 2007, the code has not changed. My original post remains true. Do not know what other "devs" might think, but I just looked up the code and read it and it is the same as always.

Hope this Helps...

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Whats the date on that post? [;)]





KPAX -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/19/2007 5:35:32 AM)

nice work !!




spence -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/19/2007 1:50:36 PM)

quote:

However, this thread does go to prove what I have ALWAYS said about 4E bombers on naval search achieving near historical results vs naval attack missions that are way over historical.


Since approxiamately 50% of the torpedo hits that G3M and G4M bombers obtained for the whole war occurred on Dec 10th, 1941 why not a house rule that the IJ Player can only use those a/c for Naval Search subsequent to that date. That way those bombers will obtain "historical results" in most games.

or have I forgotten the most important axiom of WitP?

"NEVER FORGET THAT ALL HOUSE RULES MUST APPLY ONLY TO THE ALLIES. ANYONE SIMULATING COMMAND THEREOF MUST EMPLOY ALL WEAPONS SYSTEMS IN EXACTLY THE MISGUIDED MANNER HIS HISTORICAL COUNTERPARTS DID".




Feinder -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/19/2007 3:55:00 PM)

Question -

I has been my observation that planes on NavSearch really only gain exp if there's something to spot.  It's a little bit off to say that setting your squadrons to 100-NavSearch will gain a lot of exp.  I believe they gain a lot of exp in your test, because there are lot of things to SPOT.  But if for example, you look at your PBY squadron at Dutch Harbor that's been sitting there the entire war, his exp will probably have only gone up by +5 or +6.  Compare that to you squadron at say, Darwin where there's always something to spot, and that squadron will be in the 70-80s.

Just to check tho, you could run your test with no targets, and see how often the exp goes up.  But I think that "having something to spot" is what pushes the exp gain, not just the fact that they're out patrolling the ocean.

-F-




Dino -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/19/2007 6:15:24 PM)

No question about it...the exp from naval search will not go above low 60s if there is nothing to spot.





Mynok -> RE: Test: Level Bombers on 100 % Naval Search (10/19/2007 10:23:40 PM)


Remember something else: there are some morale check rolls that can reduce the number of planes that fly a mission. I suspect that with more air groups, you got more morale check rolls and thus had *more* planes flying. This would especially be true until the morale got high.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375