How to correct the over effective low level bombing

How to correct the over effective low level bombing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Spooky -> How to correct the over effective low level bombing (7/12/2002 2:01:57 AM)
Hi Here is the poll asked by Joel. As he said "I don't usually like design by polling, but I'm interested in getting some quantifiable feedback on this issue. I need to say up front that there is no guarantee that we will do anything here as our group may have a different opinion than the poll even after seeing the poll results. But with this in mind, I suggest someone make up a poll that asks whether we should do one of the following in a future patch"

brisd -> You forgot: (7/12/2002 2:07:38 AM)
None of the above. I don't have a solution but maybe someone more educated on heavy bombers and their ability to hit manueving ships at high speed can? Flak values seem fine as is. IMO

zed -> (7/12/2002 2:14:28 AM)
I have a suggestion not listed, as AA fire and no of interceptors increase, decrease the likelyhood of level bombers getting a hit.

Spooky -> (7/12/2002 2:17:14 AM)
IMO, flak is not the problem. I would rather decrease the efficiency of the low altitude bombing ... ie : all other factors similar - 1,000' bombing should be 50-75% more effective than 6,000' bombing rather than 200-300% as it seems to be now ... Spooky

Nixuebrig -> Re: You forgot: (7/12/2002 2:20:14 AM)
Does someone know the formula for the Flak.Maybe this would help to figure out a solution. Pwrsonally i would say, the larger and the less maneuverability the incoming target(plane) the more often it is hit. With b17s you can attack safely every TF at 100 or 1000ft without fearing to loose to many.

mdiehl -> (7/12/2002 2:25:03 AM)
The issue isn't flak effectiveness or bomber accuracy. It's CAP. If a handful of Hudsons, B17s, or Betties is making it unscathed through a score of fighters on CAP, the model is broken.

zed -> (7/12/2002 2:33:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky [B]IMO, flak is not the problem. I would rather decrease the efficiency of the low altitude bombing ... ie : all other factors similar - 1,000' bombing should be 50-75% more effective than 6,000' bombing rather than 200-300% as it seems to be now ... Spooky [/B][/QUOTE] I agree 100% and was trying to say the same thing. ALso, presence of interceptors/density of AA fire should decrease chances as well.

Basement Command -> (7/12/2002 3:03:44 AM)
I'm not going to vote in the poll - at least not yet, but I have a question. As I recall US bombers (Mostly B25s?) were outfitted with multiple forward facing 50 cal MGs that were pretty effective in interdicting lightly armored Japanese shipping. Is this modeled anywhere? If not, does this balance to a degree the effectiveness of low level bombing?... Or was all that refitting of US bombers later in the war than is represented by UV. If so, what accomodatins for this are planned for WITP?

dgaad -> (7/12/2002 3:36:24 AM)
If UV were designed by Polls, here's what we would get : 1. Every pilot would be an ace. 2. Every player could add their name to the pilot database. Along with those of their friends. 3. Zeros would automatically shoot down everything that's not a Zero. 4. Every Japanese bomber would be a kamikaze. 5. Every carrier engagement would be like Midway, but with Go-Go girls on the flight decks during the strike launch. 6. PT 109 would be "presidential". 7. PT 76 (McHale's Navy) would be a floating disaster for both sides. 8. There would be embedded MPEGs of USO Dancing girls, and broadcasts by Tokyo Rose. 9. There would have to be a bridge somewhere that needed to be built by captured Brits and Americans. 10. Instead of the sound of an aircraft we would hear during a Japanese plane attack, we would hear "Tora, Tora, Toya!!!"

dgaad -> (7/12/2002 3:39:26 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Basement Command [B]I'm not going to vote in the poll - at least not yet, but I have a question. As I recall US bombers (Mostly B25s?) were outfitted with multiple forward facing 50 cal MGs that were pretty effective in interdicting lightly armored Japanese shipping. Is this modeled anywhere? If not, does this balance to a degree the effectiveness of low level bombing?... Or was all that refitting of US bombers later in the war than is represented by UV. If so, what accomodatins for this are planned for WITP? [/B][/QUOTE] Planes attacking at 100 feet will "strafe". For Marauders and so forth, that have 6 forward firing 50 cals, this would indeed be devastating to a lightly armored ship. In fact, destroyers and other types of small lightly armed ships could even be blown up by a sustained burst in the right place. However, in the game, about the only thing that can possibly be sunk by strafing, regardless of the plane type, is a barge. And only if you are somewhat lucky. And yes, the weapon system loadout does migrate during the game, with plane versions : B-26B becomes the B-26G, or whatever, etc.

Fred98 -> (7/12/2002 6:10:33 AM)
Quote " Planes attacking at 100 feet will "strafe". For Marauders and so forth, that have 6 forward firing 50 cals, this would indeed be devastating to a lightly armored ship" This game starts in May 1942. The numerous forward firing MGs that you mentined were installed after a certain date (don't know off hand). And logic says they were not installed in every aircraft on the same day. They were installed to counter the AA coming from transports that were the target of the raid.

Fred98 -> (7/12/2002 6:21:54 AM)
Interesting that some players use bombers and are unable to hit any ground units. And yet this poll is �how to reduce the effectiveness of low level bombers� The obvious answer is to have effective ground flak. But as for air defense, I would have thought that if, for example, 10 fighters were flying escort, the defenders might throw in perhaps 15 or 20 fighters against them. It is possible that there are no losses on either side but the defenders have held up the escorts which was always the idea. Any remaining defending fighters go after the bombers. If the remaining fighters were in great numbers then quite a few bombers would be lost. But again it is possible that none are lost but plenty are damaged. In this case any bombs dropped would be very inaccurate. But the results we are seeing are nothing like this. I think perhaps some players are sending hundreds of aircraft on one mission. The game designers assumed we wargamers would play historical type air missions and so the system is not handling the a-historical air missions.

Ron Saueracker -> Experience levels of LBA pilots (7/12/2002 10:30:43 AM)
Ever check out these puppies? I've got boys that fly boxcars with 99 experience.!!!Hmmm,,,It's amazing to see pilots with high 90's in AAF vs specialist USN flyers. Just an observation.

mjk428 -> Wait Until Bugs Are Fixed? (7/12/2002 11:03:54 AM)
Since there seem to still be a couple of nasty bugs regarding strafing, might this be having unexpected effects with low level bombers? Just a cautious thought. Personally, I haven't seen much of a problem but I haven't used B-17's that aggressively. They don't start showing up in the replacement pool until around September and operational losses cause me to hold them for only critical targets. I have no problem with flak being made slightly more lethal as long as it's just a very slight tweak. I would also agree that the surprising ability that 3 Betty's have to regularly sneak in and get hits on my Allied CV's is much more of a problem. Especially when they ALL get hits. I am a little concerned that this desire to "tone down" the B-17's is a continuance of a (probably subconscious) trend that I've perceived to "help out" the Japanese side. Scenario design and replacement levels should be the preferred methods of balancing play IMHO. Thank You, Marty K

strollen -> Cap isn't broken (7/12/2002 1:01:44 PM)
I am not sure what to think about B17 and Flak. I think the test J7B is running are interesting and show the problem is a bit worse than I perceived. However, I notice a lot of people complaining about CAP which I am reasonably sure isn't broken. In my experience, playing PBEM and both sides. CAP is working pretty much as intended. In situation where the bombers are lightly escorted and face fresh pilots with low fatigue and good morale the bombers get slaughtered especially fragile Betty's and Nells and carrier planes. (Obviously B17,B24 work differently) The only time I see a situation where 4 Betty's slip past 40+ CAP fighters and put a couple of Torps in a carrier or transport is when the CAP has been fighting a lot for the day. A very typical situation is a 2 CV TF is flying CAP for an transport fleet, over and a day goes like this. Say CAP starts out as 50 Wildcats with high morale and Fatigue around 20. There are 2 Jap airbase within range. Morning. 6 unescorted bombers attack. CAP cuts them down and they turn back Large escorted strike attacks carrier fleet. Lots of fighting. A hit is scored small lightly escorted (e.g. 5 Zero's 15 Vals) attacks transport fleet. CAP damages and destroys couple of bombers, bombers get a couple hits on transports. Afternoon. Another strike from Rabaul. CAP is less effective . Both carriers take one Torp each. 4 Betty's attack. 35 F4F CAP do nothing, Betty's score 2 more torps, CV is in danger of sinking US players scream in disgust. I see nothing wrong with this because this was exactly when Kamikaze slip through, the Midway SDB strike happened etc. CAP pilots got tired and were out of position or made mistakes. I think that before more complain about this I'd like to see some combat reports. That show 6 or so unescorted bombers sliping by a CAP of 40 to 50 planes on the first air raid of the day and scoring hits, and the morale and fatigue of the pilots.

mjk428 -> Re: CAP isn't broken (7/12/2002 2:08:47 PM)
Strollen, I'm glad to hear that CAP is working for you. It is possible though that it's not for others. It's not been a serious issue for me but extremely small unescorted raids succeed more frequently than I would expect statistically. My comment was simply acknowledgeing what some others feel strongly about and have posted on this issue.

pasternakski -> (7/12/2002 2:38:03 PM)
zed and spooky, you're right on it. While Bettys and (within torpedo-carrying-range) Nells were nasty dangerous and perform in the game probably about as they ought (although I suspect that torpedo-carrying Nellies are a lot better than they should be, but who am I to judge?), when I play the Allies, I am often embarrassed by (but grateful for) the sinking tonnage yielded by B-25s, and absolutely gleeful over the little black explosions and deck- or belt armor-hits provided by such historically inept craft as the A-20, Hudson, and land-based SBDs (that is, A-24s). They absolutely :mad: me off when I play the IJN. Grigsby had it under control in the good old days, remember? In Carrier Force, the Midway planes couldn't hit their behinds with both hands, their girlfriends' hands, and Madame Tussaud's wax hands. Ought to be the same way here, methinks.... -------- I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.

strollen -> (7/12/2002 2:45:04 PM)
Fair enough and really wasn't singling you out the B17 thread has plenty of others who were far more vociforous in their complaints. But what are your and others expectation of how often small (<10) bombers with escort by 3 or less should be able to get through a cap of >30 fighters and score hits on a TF? How much of an impact should the number of attacks the CAP has fought that day effect the result? What effects should CAP fatigue, and morale have? Having defined you expectations. What are the statistics from the games you played. Now I actually don't expect anybody (other the J7B :)) to have collected that information. However, I do think it is reasonable for people prior to complaining about something to at make an effort to at least set an expection. That way we can argue if the expectation are reasonable. So for example it is unreasonable to expect that B17 Squadron should only hit there targets 10%, even though this probably close to what happened in the war. The reason is than when used in low level attacks B17 where actually far more effective. So for me I expect that fresh CAP to cause unacceptable losses to small raids 90% of the time and CAP which has fought 2 or more battles in the day the number should drop to between say 60%. Since there are plenty of examples of small number of planes (heck even Catalina) achieving surprise and scoring hits, because people let there guard down after beating back a couple of attacks. I suspect that people are naturally remembered the exceptions, when the small raid hit the Carrier/transport but forgetting all the cases where the raid was shot down or aborted. The AI designer for CIVIII (great AI BTW) said that he got tired of all the play tester complaining about the the computer cheated in battle. So he changed it to give the human a significant advantage. The result all of the play testers said great now the combat system is fair :)

dgaad -> (7/12/2002 4:04:11 PM)
Hypothetically : Lets say you design the "Perfect Wargame" where every possible variable is not only there but correct, where historical moves always garner historical results, etc. Guess what? If this "Perfect Wargame" were about the same topic as UV, you would have people complaining that low altitude ship attacks are "too effective" -- precisely because they could have been used more effectively during the war, but weren't. Its like hindsight. And, no, I don't agree that the solution is to tweak the Perfect Wargame so that historical play does NOT give historical results simply because the players are playing with "historical hindsight". The solution is new tactics to deal with the tactical situation presented.

mjk428 -> (7/12/2002 5:01:17 PM)
[I]Quote by Strollen[/I] [QUOTE]So for me I expect that fresh CAP to cause unacceptable losses to small raids 90% of the time and CAP which has fought 2 or more battles in the day the number should drop to between say 60%. Since there are plenty of examples of small number of planes (heck even Catalina) achieving surprise and scoring hits, because people let there guard down after beating back a couple of attacks. [/QUOTE] That seems perfectly reasonable to me as well. Again, I don't have anything even approaching a serious problem with this but it did happen to me 3 or 4 times in just a few days. The situation was always overwhelming CAP versus 3-6 bombers and they always got hits. It could be that for whatever reason the formula for bomber interceptions is skewed when the defenders have better than 20:1 odds. BTW, I can understand that they might not get shot down but they seem to have a 67% chance of getting hits which adds injury to insult.:) This is by no means a gamebreaker for me, I just sympathize with those who are frustrated by this anomoly. Finally, if given the choice, I'd prefer to keep things exactly the way they are if the alternative was to make it impossible for tiny groups to get a hit on a ship.

Spooky -> B-25 & B-26 data (7/12/2002 6:13:07 PM)
I don't think that the B-17 is the major problem. There are not very numerous and very supplies-hungry (see Dgaad's post about it). However, I really have the feeling that the US medium bombers (especially B-25 & B-26) are really some kind of uber-weapons when used at 1.000' against convoys TF but also against CV TF. What I don't know is whether the B-25 & B-26 were used in real life PTO with such low altitude levels. If not, why ? And if so, was it successful ? Thanks Spooky PS : this thread is not about CAP, another thread could be opened about it but IMO, CAP works as it is intended with of course some randomness which can be very frustrating ... as it was in WWII :)

brisd -> a gamebreaker (7/12/2002 11:23:55 PM)
I guess in my old age, my frustration threshold is lower. The UV cdrom is back in its pretty case and out of my pc since the first day it arrived back in May. I am following the comments with interest, a few of my own: 1. Any documented hits by B17's at ANY altitude against any manuvering FAST warships in TF with CAP? 2. No problems overall with other tactical bombers though I think some of the Allied LBA accuracy/performance is unrealistic (A-24 / Hudson's). 3. The flak analysis going on by another player is quite revealing. 4. Off topic: How does one remove an IGNORE placed by mistake in this forum format? No longer disgusted, moving on to other games. :p

Black Cat -> Don`t tinker with the B - 17`s Matrix (7/13/2002 12:15:35 AM)
offically, and by that I mean in a Patch that incorporates other , more important, fixes and enhancements that we cannot do without the code.... I mean this issue can be "adjusted" in the editor on an individual basis, can it not ? Unless I`m missing something ( other then sleep having done an all-nighter with the Campaign Game ) the Super Duper Low Level Level Bomber Ship Killer Mk I is for Play Balance VS the AI, of course in the Real War LB`s couldn`t, and never actually did what they do in the Game. Gary & The Matrix Crew are not Dopes, they want to provide a good Gaming Experience for both sides, and super low level B-17 ship killers are the way they chose to go for the U.S. side. No offense... but I also must say that those who view this issue as unfair/unrealistic for the Japanese player don`t seem bothered by the fact that in the May 42 - Dec-43 Campaign Games Midway never happens :eek: and they can get six big Carriers with those magnificent Naval Aviaitors that can charge around the South Pac. while keeping the fight at distance with their longer range AC`s..... Not to come on too strong here, but I remember way back to Pac War Ver. 2.0 when it was felt by the vocal U.S. players that the Jap Long Lance Torp was " toooooo deadleeyyyyy":rolleyes: so that got "toned down" in an offical patch... and guess what ? Yes; you got it !! , it so unbalaced the _ full Campaign Game _ the Japanese player ( vs the A.I or HtoH or Email ) was screwed, but it took months of real time playing to find that out.....and re-fix it, remember that Gary...;) Sorry for the Rant...please indulge a Newbie..;)

panda124c -> Re: B-25 & B-26 data (7/13/2002 12:59:30 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky [B]I don't think that the B-17 is the major problem. There are not very numerous and very supplies-hungry (see Dgaad's post about it). However, I really have the feeling that the US medium bombers (especially B-25 & B-26) are really some kind of uber-weapons when used at 1.000' against convoys TF but also against CV TF. What I don't know is whether the B-25 & B-26 were used in real life PTO with such low altitude levels. If not, why ? And if so, was it successful ? Thanks Spooky PS : this thread is not about CAP, another thread could be opened about it but IMO, CAP works as it is intended with of course some randomness which can be very frustrating ... as it was in WWII :) [/B][/QUOTE] Battle of the Bismark Sea, Yes the A-20, B-25 were used at mast height, skip bombing was very effective the speed at which the bomb was delivered was much higher than the speed use to deliver a torpedo, shorter run in to target (time). The run in was at deck level with guns blazing to suppress flak single bombs were dropped thus multiple attacks could be made( B-25's up to 14 - .50 cal. MGs firing forward, 8 in the nose, 4 side mounted in gun packs and 2 in the top turrent, earlier model only 8 to 12 guns, A-20's 8-12 guns). I love buzz saws. The original 'Puff'. :D One of the most famous picture of an A-20 attack in Rabual harbor shows an A-20 being hit, rolls right and digs a wing into the water as his partner pulls up to clear the ship being attacked. Low level attacks against airfields where you had to look up to see the aircraft you were attacking dropping 'parafrags' (fragmentation bombs on parachutes) to slow the bombs down so the explosion would not hit the dropping aircraft. The tactic eventually developed was to have eight B-25's wing tip to wing tip make one pass at a target with all guns blazing. Or two rows of four A/C each for 'small' targets. The B-26's were used more as level bombers against Rabaul, empty with the nose down on the way home they were as fast as a Zero so the fighter only got one pass (if they were between the bombers and home) then a long stern chase. Eventually they were replaced with B-25's because of load and range factors.

panda124c -> Re: Don`t tinker with the B - 17`s Matrix (7/13/2002 1:13:01 AM)
Personally I think the whole problem boils down to the classification of Level Bomber. There should be be two different classes of Level Bomber, call them Medium Bombers and High Altitude Bombers. This would allow the characteristics of the large Heavy Bomber (B-17 and B-24) to be different from the Medium Bomber(A-20, B-26, B-25, Hudson (?)). The two classes were used in totaly different ways and should not be lumped into the same class. This would also allow the tweeking of the logistics to launch a Heavy Bomber raid which is greater than a Medium Bomber raid. There has been some questions about the Hudson being a Level Bomber they were used more in the recon role much like the PBYs. This is much like classing the PBY as a torpedo bomber.:p

zed -> battle of Bismark Sea (7/13/2002 2:24:24 AM)
It behooves every one to carefully read about the first time low level attack was used en masse - march 4 1943 - Battle of Bismark Sea. I looked it up in "FIRE IN THE SKY" but unfortunately he does not give numbers. It is also unclear to me whether this tactic was used against surface combat groups.

dgaad -> Re: battle of Bismark Sea (7/13/2002 2:32:44 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zed [B]It behooves every one to carefully read about the first time low level attack was used en masse - march 4 1943 - Battle of Bismark Sea. I looked it up in "FIRE IN THE SKY" but unfortunately he does not give numbers. It is also unclear to me whether this tactic was used against surface combat groups. [/B][/QUOTE] Does FITS talk about the low level attacks that were used by B-17s in October 1942?

dgaad -> (7/13/2002 2:39:33 AM)
People LISTEN UP : [B]If you are looking for historical examples of B-17s being used against carrier TFs for low level raids, YOU WON'T FIND THEM BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAPPENED. This is NOT a sound basis for concluding the game should prevent them. [/B] It was theoretically possible for this kind of raid, and we do know that B-17s were used in low level raids against transport TFs at least several times. Air Corps doctrine thenceforward required only MEDIUM bombers to be used thereafter (Mitchells, Havocs, Marauders). Whether or not heavy or medium bombers can be used in low level attacks versus naval TFs is a matter for the player to decide. If you are willing to risk loss to B-17s in these types of attacks, that's up to you. I personally don't use B-17s this way unless I have NO medium bombers available, because I know the 17s only get 7 replacement crews and machines per MONTH. My own use parallels the historical doctrine quite nicely, and I arrived at this use for many of the same reasons that obtained historically : 17s are not as effective as Mediums in that role, 17s are too expensive, I have plenty of Mediums available, 17s are really effective airbase suppressors at high altitude so why waste them on something another craft can do much better. Your results against your opponents may vary. Other american commanders may choose a different doctrine. That's up to them. But nothing suggests that new rules or tweaks be introduced to lop off these options at the neck. If you are advocating this, it sounds like sour grapes to me. I should state for the record I have played Japanese in a scenario 17 and had a carrier group attacked by B-17s in much the same manner some people are complaining about. IIRC the American player said, after the turn processed, "Well, I won't be doing that again for some time". He lost more than half of his 17s to either AA or CAP, which reduced his effective numbers of 17s to about 10 in the entire theater. He gets NO replacements for 17s till October (that's 4 months from now).

dgaad -> Re: battle of Bismark Sea (7/13/2002 3:26:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zed [B]It behooves every one to carefully read about the first time low level attack was used en masse - march 4 1943 - Battle of Bismark Sea. I looked it up in "FIRE IN THE SKY" but unfortunately he does not give numbers. It is also unclear to me whether this tactic was used against surface combat groups. [/B][/QUOTE] By the way, Zed, any relation to the Zed of Pulp Fiction? Just kidding. You would be doing Humanity a great service if you could post to this forum a scantype in a passage from FITS about a successful medium bomber attack on a Japanese transport group.

strollen -> Re: a gamebreaker (7/13/2002 6:51:09 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd [B]I guess in my old age, my frustration threshold is lower. The UV cdrom is back in its pretty case and out of my pc since the first day it arrived back in May. I am following the comments with interest, a few of my own: 1. Any documented hits by B17's at ANY altitude against any manuvering FAST warships in TF with CAP? 2. No problems overall with other tactical bombers though I think some of the Allied LBA accuracy/performance is unrealistic (A-24 / Hudson's). No longer disgusted, moving on to other games. :p [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, in the battle of Bismark sea. 28 B17 attacking at altitudes from 3-5,000 feet scored 2 hits against Destroyers, along with 2 hit against transports, and 2 other B17 scored a total of 5 1,000 lb hits against a transport sinking it. The entire 1st phase of the battle took place with Japanese Zero's and Oscar providing CAP from Rabual and Gasamata. The B17 lost one to Flak, a couple were damaged by Zero, and most of the rest suffered Flak damage. The Japanese were alerted to the raid and the destroyer reached near flank speed . I believe destroyers count as fast warships :)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625