|
Black Cat -> (8/2/2002 4:27:48 AM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]I havn't found the new repair rates to be all that hard so far....but then again, i am careful now to ration out where, when and how i want my medium and big bombers to strike.
I originally wasn`t going to bother to reply to this , but since some of us have put so much time into this issue, I`m compelled to. First we are just talking about the Heavy Bomber Repair rates.
"We do have to be careful here. Easing the repair rates of B-17's so that they can once more bomb 24/7 with only 1 or 2 down for repair is about the same as 1.2 was......no difference. "
No one is saying that at all, have you bothered to read the test reports and the obvious problem they show with the 1.2 repair rates...to distill it for you:
There...Is...No...Realistic...Repair...Rates...Going...On...
" Joel is right in cautioning against taking away penalties for "stuffing" forward bases full of every AG possible.....not hard to do in this game where even a level 4 airfield can hold over 200 aircraft without penalty. But even with full aviation support.....can one expect all these planes to be kept 80%+ operational in a sustained bombing operation?,"
???? :confused: Again you miss the point, The Heavy Bomb SQ`s are not even being repaired at a rate so that they are at 45% operational readiness... please read the Tests.....
" especially when bombing airfields bursting with aircraft still seldom produces damaged or destroyed planes on the ground, the same problem often seen in PacWar....rarely it seems are planes damaged or destroyed in airraids, or even straffing attacks. Perhaps that needs to be looked at too."
You do not "get" to the AC on the ground in any significant way until you max out the damage on the Runway/Airbase, and the AB goes into low supply, i.e, there is a "damage threshold" you must reach, same as in Pac War. It is a _good thing_ for Gameplay BTW.
"I'm finding that if my bombers are spared from heavy flak and CAP concentrations (mainly by attacking bases at heights more common in Europe for B-17's) that i can keep up a sustained bombing campaign for over a week at time in which the target base gets it's cage rattled. If the base i'm attacking starts to wilt under the logistical stranglehold, i can then start lowering altitudes as flak levels drop and really paste the base. I Just retook Gili Gili that way from the AI utilizing PM and Cooktown (the B-17's at Cooktown alone, the twin engined brutes at PM)"
That`s sounds like a good Battle you got going...
"Then a few days down time usually brings back a good portion of planes. "
??? Downtime does not effect the new repair rates ( the time in which AC are repaired ) of the _Heavy Bombers_ in any way... you are the only one seeing this.
" It does help too, too have the big bombers operating from a more rearward base, usually alone (since in early days no fighter has the range to escort them anyway)"
The medium bomber damage rates seem fine...heavy use/damage quickly brings them down but a few days rest brings their damaged units back to operational status and morale starts to edge up."
"More testing should reveal it. "
MORE ???, We just finished doing two that took us all day , if don`t like them why don`t you do an extensive test ( with save files of course ) with just the Heavy Bombers and post your detailed result of the repair rates ?? PS: Feel free to use my test report format.
Part of the problem is that damage to aircraft has to be abstracted to some extent.....after all there is a big difference between repairing a B-17 with bullet holes and another that has had one or two engines fragged. Given how many B-17's were operational in the theater at this time......and the priority of all future production (along with spare parts i would assume) all going to the 8th in Europe....i could see 'badly' damaged B-17's sitting on the tarmac for days at a time waiting for critical parts and engines to be brought in."
They took the parts out of some damaged AC to keep the rest flying...
I believe a quick study of air ops in this theater at this time will reveal that the surviving Clark Field B-17's certainly did not conduct 'sustained' bombing operations against Japanese targets. More often then not they appear to have been used as long range reconesence planes and/or used to attack sighted convoys.......far less intensive ops than "bombing Rabaul" round the clock. It would reflect the careful use of limited resources, i.e. airframes, trained crewmen, and above all else, spare parts."
Right, because almost all were destroyed on the Ground on the First Day .
"If possible for future patches or WitP, perhaps it might be feasible to attack "level of bomber damage' to the roll for repair to reflect the differences between lightly damaged planes and badly damaged ones."
Sounds good to me too.
" Another option......modify the repair roll to the amount of replacements in the pool for that type. It may not be totally accurate but it could give an idea of the availability of spare parts by it's relationship to the avalability of whole airframes and might be easier to code vs keeping track of specific damage levels for each aircraft [/B][/QUOTE]'"
Sounds good, someone Chain Gary & Joel to the computer for the rest of their lives...;)
|
|
|
|
