RE: Low Level Naval Attacks

RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

rtrapasso -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/6/2010 12:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue. Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased. Of course it is... otherwise, knowing what we do in hindsight, the Allies could probably roll over the Japanese probably MUCH quicker than occurred in real events (e.g. - see some of the discussions about, for instance "Why Can't The Japanese Hold Burma"... answer: because the Allies players know better than to repeat the idiocy of what happened in the first few months of the war). So, this all is all done in the name of play balance. From what i can figure, given the penetration of the IJ codes (as well as some other things), the Allies should have won the war at least 1-2 year earlier, but this advantage was squandered by various "empire builders" in the intel agencies. i'd truly like to see something closer to a sim so that folks could really explore possibilities of what might (or should) have been in the theater. Unfortunately, right now AE doesn't approach this, but i am hopeful that in a few years folks will develop something that comes much closer than this does now.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/6/2010 1:03:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue. Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased. Of course it is... otherwise, knowing what we do in hindsight, the Allies could probably roll over the Japanese probably MUCH quicker than occurred in real events (e.g. - see some of the discussions about, for instance "Why Can't The Japanese Hold Burma"... answer: because the Allies players know better than to repeat the idiocy of what happened in the first few months of the war). So, this all is all done in the name of play balance. This is not right. The game is supposed to be an accurate representation of the strengths and capabilities of the competing sides. "Play balance" is the job of the scenario designers, not the game designers.

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/6/2010 9:01:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: USS America So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried? Something else I'd like to see the justification for. When LeMay brought his B-29's down to lower level night attacks they were able to INCREASE the bomb load, not decrease it. By flying through thicker air and avoiding the jet stream. Going from 10k alt to 100ft does make a differance in air density but no where near enough as the B29's did under LeMay. Also flying at wave top height really takes a toll on pilot fatigue and a plane needs as much agility as possible to avoid crashing into the waves. Maybe this is the raison-d'etre for 1/2 bomb load. 100ft is the attack alt but I seriously doubt the bombers ever flew a couple hundred miles at their attack alt. Pretty sure they flew to their targets at normal alt and not at skip bombing alt. So there shouldn´t be a fat hit in these attacks IMO.

Nikademus -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/6/2010 2:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue. Not play balance. The penalty added was added because skip bombing as represented in the game (and usable by both sides) became an exploit.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/6/2010 4:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue. Not play balance. The penalty added was added because skip bombing as represented in the game (and usable by both sides) became an exploit. In truth, maybe the answer should have been to limit actual "skip bombing" to those Allied A/C types designed for it. I refer to the "gunship" variants that had the forward firepower to suppress the flak of the target. As these didn't start arriving in theatre until mid-1943, it would have also have limited the effect until the right time frame.

rtrapasso -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/7/2010 12:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue. Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased. Of course it is... otherwise, knowing what we do in hindsight, the Allies could probably roll over the Japanese probably MUCH quicker than occurred in real events (e.g. - see some of the discussions about, for instance "Why Can't The Japanese Hold Burma"... answer: because the Allies players know better than to repeat the idiocy of what happened in the first few months of the war). So, this all is all done in the name of play balance. This is not right. The game is supposed to be an accurate representation of the strengths and capabilities of the competing sides. "Play balance" is the job of the scenario designers, not the game designers. Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no?

rtrapasso -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/7/2010 1:01:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue. Not play balance. The penalty added was added because skip bombing as represented in the game (and usable by both sides) became an exploit. That sounds about right, however, i do remember reading from one of the devs (Frag, maybe?), that it was a play balance thing...

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/7/2010 2:00:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no? I think I just did. And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design". If a scenario is wrong, it's correctable by the players. Once you build WRONG into the system, only the designers can change it.

Menser -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/7/2010 2:05:11 PM)
Good stuff on the 5th and the development of skip bombing in general. http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Books/Rodman/rodman.pdf

rtrapasso -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/7/2010 2:07:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no? I think I just did. And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design". If a scenario is wrong, it's correctable by the players. Once you build WRONG into the system, only the designers can change it. Not entirely true, i hope. As inaccurate as original WITP was, i think some of the CHS scenarios came close to getting it right... don't get me wrong, i think there were still big problems (esp. using CHS-NikMod, the air-to-air model is very anemic, although the flak model was vastly improved.) i am hopeful that someone will do something to AE to make it come pretty close to what a "scenario fan" would want... i don't think it will happen for a while, and it will be a BIG task, but i am optimistic it will eventually come about. However, i think there are possibly SOME things in the AE model that might be extremely difficult to overcome... i really haven't fooled around with it enough to really decide, though.

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/7/2010 9:21:51 PM)
CT and Mike. I really didnt word the second part of my post very well at all tbh, I wasnt trying to suggest they flew at wavetop height all the way (couldn't aquire targets properly at least).Just that with the low level manuouvering and (usually sharp) pull up (however shallow) needs more manouvreability than a fully laden 2E or 4E bomber could comfortably do on a safe and regular basis. with 1/2 bombload the stresses on the airframe are much reduced. however that said i havn't read anywhere that planes actually loaded less ordinance for attack missions, I was just coming up with a 'possible' justification for the rule. Not defending it or saying it's historically correct, just using my imagination for its implementation (righly or wrongly).

David The Great -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/8/2010 12:38:03 PM)
Hi all, In our game we had a few low level 100ft port attacks with 4EB and 2EB's. As far as I can see the bomb load in these attacks was not halved, and the results are impressive. Our opponent ( we play 2 vs 1 ) claims that besides being gamey (we play with 1 house rule no strat bombing prior to 7/43 ), it also is a bug that was solved 2 patches back and seems to be resurfacing. Is ther a point in halving the bomb load for naval attacks at sea and not for attacks versus ships in port ? Here are the attacks , Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 3 Ki-44 Tojo x 5 Allied aircraft A-29A Hudson x 5 DB-3M x 3 B-17E Fortress x 9 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses DB-3M: 1 destroyed B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Japanese Ships xAKL Shingetsu Maru BB Fuso, Bomb hits 8, on fire xAK Soyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire BB Ise, Bomb hits 7, on fire DD Tachikaze, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk xAK Kamoi Maru xAK Atlas Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire xAK Anyo Maru, Bomb hits 1 Japanese ground losses: 23 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled) Port hits 7 Aircraft Attacking: 5 x A-29A Hudson bombing from 100 feet * Port Attack: 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb 1 x DB-3M bombing from 100 feet * Port Attack: 5 x 100 kg GP Bomb 2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) (3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.) 5 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead 24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 9000 Raid is overhead Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 1 Ki-44 Tojo x 2 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 9 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged Japanese Ships CL Kitakami, Bomb hits 2 BB Fuso, Bomb hits 10, heavy fires BB Ise, Bomb hits 9, heavy fires xAK Maya Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire xAK Keisho Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire Port hits 2 Aircraft Attacking: 5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 4000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 106 minutes 47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 5000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes Morning Air attack on Batangas , at 79,78 Weather in hex: Thunderstorms Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 6 Allied aircraft Hudson I x 24 P-40E Warhawk x 13 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses Hudson I: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed Japanese Ships CL Oi, Bomb hits 6 CA Chokai, Bomb hits 5, on fire CL Natori, Bomb hits 4 CM Tsubame xAKL Kumakawa Maru xAK Oigawa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire TB Tomozuru, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk Japanese ground losses: 23 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Port hits 1 Port fuel hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 4 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb 5 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb 3 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb 7 x P-40E Warhawk strafing at 100 feet CAP engaged: Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling) Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 10 Ki-44 Tojo x 5 Allied aircraft A-29A Hudson x 3 DB-3M x 2 B-17E Fortress x 3 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses DB-3M: 1 destroyed B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged Japanese Ships BB Ise, Bomb hits 2 BB Fuso, Bomb hits 3 Port hits 4 Port fuel hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 10th I.F.Chutai with Ki-27b Nate (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) (8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.) 8 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 9000 Raid is overhead 47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) (3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.) 5 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead 24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 9000 Raid is overhead Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 7 Ki-44 Tojo x 5 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 8 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged Japanese Ships BB Fuso, Bomb hits 13, on fire BB Ise, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage DD Yugumo, Bomb hits 1, on fire CL Tama, Bomb hits 1 Port hits 3 Port fuel hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 10th I.F.Chutai with Ki-27b Nate (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. 5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 5000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes 47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 2 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 15000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes Morning Air attack on Batangas , at 79,78 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 15 Allied aircraft Hudson I x 21 P-40E Warhawk x 12 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses Hudson I: 3 destroyed, 6 damaged P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed Japanese Ships CA Chokai, Bomb hits 8 xAP Hikawa Maru, Bomb hits 1 CL Natori, Bomb hits 1 CL Oi, Bomb hits 6 DD Samidare, Bomb hits 1 xAK Sydney Maru #2 PB Kiso Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire CM Tsubame, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk Port hits 2 Port fuel hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 3 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb 6 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb 6 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 10 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes As can be seen none of the bomb loads, neither te 4EB or the 2 EB are halved. One can argue about the realism for the halving, as the flight is not entirely at 100ft, and this is a port attack, so hitting a sitting duck is not that hard. A clear rule would benefit gameplay/balance.

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 7:31:14 AM)
a PORT attack isn´t a NAVAL attack so the rule for lownav attacks doesn´t apply here... for whatever reason

David The Great -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 8:05:59 AM)
I am aware of that, although i can see no difference in reason for halving of the bombload, even more i see no reason for halving if in a naval attack as most of the flight happens above 100 ft. Besides doctrine there is no practical reason for not executing low level attacks, though the lossen on the planes executing them seem rather low.

witpqs -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 8:48:54 AM)
A port attack is presumed made on stationary ships too, yes?

herwin -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 11:10:21 AM)
Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.

EUBanana -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 11:20:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet. There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them.

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 11:39:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet. There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them. yeah, you need base forces for it. And there are two different balloons IIRC, at a differnt alt.

David The Great -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 11:41:03 AM)
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/pruth/1943/b17-over-pruth-stern.html

herwin -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 11:48:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet. There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them. I'd be interested in the game data. Apparently Japan produced some 500 during the war. The UK had some 2000 deployed to cover London (about 500) and various ports/naval bases/river mouths (to discourage mining). The Allies used them for landing force and troop convoy defence!

herwin -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 11:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet. There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them. yeah, you need base forces for it. And there are two different balloons IIRC, at a differnt alt. I'd be interested in understanding how they were modelled. Encountering one was a very bad day for the aircraft crew--something like 61% of the time the aircraft was lost.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 1:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet. Two points here. Japan had a limited supply of balloons and operating units, and "reccon missions" should reveal their presence (kinda hard to hide them).

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 2:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet. There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them. yeah, you need base forces for it. And there are two different balloons IIRC, at a differnt alt. I'd be interested in understanding how they were modelled. Encountering one was a very bad day for the aircraft crew--something like 61% of the time the aircraft was lost. don´t know how they work in the game exactly, I do know that they can´t reach 10,000ft, hence my standard attack alt of 10,000ft for my Allied bombers when attacking an enemy base. Whenever I attacked below 10,000ft (by accident) then I suffered more trom balloons than enemy flak.

FatR -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 2:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 No form of bombing was "easy"...., except maybe "area bombing". But there is no rational justification for making "skip bombing" as difficult as the game makes it. Surely, by "difficult" you meant "ridiculously effective"? Unless you, like, totally ignore training, it is quite rare to get a 100-ft. pass without hits. And I meant "pass", not "raid". Even against APDs and whatever. I'm amazed by people who whine that the tactic that is partially houseruled out of almost every PBEM out there to prevent complete breakdown of the game (because that's what altitude restiction for 4E naval attacks is, in essence) is somehow underpowered. Do they play at all?

DBS -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 3:01:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso The Brits WERE bombing from "masthead height" from the beginning of the Pacific war, but they hadn't developed the "skip" technique, i AFAIK they didn't have special bombs... their results weren't nearly as good as the later "skip" technique. i expect they had a lot of problems with the bombers being damaged with their own bombs... i don't recall the exact details, but i am pretty sure they pretty much abandoned it due to high casualties. The RAF employed masthead attacks against German merchant shipping in the English Channel from 1940 onwards. If anything, their doctrine encouraged such an aggressive approach. Not aware of self-damage from bombs being a major problem, but Blenheims were suffering anything up to 25% casualties from AA fire, Luftwaffe fighter cover, and the hazards of operating at that level - eg hitting masts, towed barrage balloons, or just the Oggin itself. Coastal Command also employed very low level attacks from 1939 vs U-boats - these latter attacks did suffer some self-damage due to poorly designed ASW bombs skipping and exploding behind the aircraft. The RAF eventually solved the casualty problems with faster, better aircraft (Beaufighters and Mossies), carrying a lot more firepower (a Beau with 4xHispano and 6x.303 arguably the match of the B-25 gunships) to suppress flak on the run-in, adding rockets and torps into the mix, and using massed wings of 30+ aircraft to mob a convoy. By the time such toys and tactics became available, suspect pretty limited trade available in the SEAC area out east; Beaus did a good enough job anyway, in penny packets, vs any small craft they chanced upon. Put bluntly, the British area of ops in the East had a coastline running roughly at right angles to the front-line, while in the SW Pacific (and the English Channel) it more often approximated to perpendicular, giving more targets and easier reach.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 3:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 No form of bombing was "easy"...., except maybe "area bombing". But there is no rational justification for making "skip bombing" as difficult as the game makes it. Surely, by "difficult" you meant "ridiculously effective"? Unless you, like, totally ignore training, it is quite rare to get a 100-ft. pass without hits. And I meant "pass", not "raid". Even against APDs and whatever. I'm amazed by people who whine that the tactic that is partially houseruled out of almost every PBEM out there to prevent complete breakdown of the game (because that's what altitude restiction for 4E naval attacks is, in essence) is somehow underpowered. Do they play at all? And I think what you mean by "ridiculously effective" is "effective for the Allies". Historically these attacks were VERY effective..., but only for the Allies who had the A/C types necessary to do them. As to "restrictions", if you bother to read through this thread, you'll see that I'm in favor of limiting "skip bombing" to "gunship bombers" with a 60 skill in low level naval attack. Hardly promoting a "complete breakdown of the game"..., just a accurate recreation of the situation that existed in the last two years of the war. If you want to talk about "ridiculously effective", have some Kates level bomb a naval TF of DD's from 9,000 feet. Historically they got something like 05% hits on the "sitting ducks" at PH---in the game you can consider yourself to have been robbed if they don't get 50% hits on ships maneuvering at 30 knots in the open ocean. Now that goes right past ridiculous and straight to absurd.

morganbj -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 5:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design". Not necessarily so. One purpose of a game is to make it competitive between two or more players. Simulations are supposed to be "historically accurate." So, a game like AE, which is some degree of both, can have features of both. Some of us seem to think that AE isa perfect simulation, or at least, is supposed to be. It's not. Mike, are you suggesting that this is the ONLY play balance code in AE? If so, then look again.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 7:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design". Not necessarily so. One purpose of a game is to make it competitive between two or more players. Simulations are supposed to be "historically accurate." So, a game like AE, which is some degree of both, can have features of both. Some of us seem to think that AE is a perfect simulation, or at least, is supposed to be. It's not. But it SHOULD be. The game is called "The War in the Pacific". Not "Some Semblance of the War in the Pacific"..., "Kinda, Sorta, like the War in the Pacific". Which means that it SHOULD resemble as closely as possible the actual historical war. Not some JFB's notion of a "fair fight". "Fair Fight" belongs in the scenario selection under "Yamamoto has a Wet Dream".

witpqs -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 8:14:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design". Not necessarily so. One purpose of a game is to make it competitive between two or more players. Simulations are supposed to be "historically accurate." So, a game like AE, which is some degree of both, can have features of both. Some of us seem to think that AE isa perfect simulation, or at least, is supposed to be. It's not. Mike, are you suggesting that this is the ONLY play balance code in AE? If so, then look again. I think you have actually reinforced Mike's point. 'Balance' can not be taken out of the game engine, so everybody gets stuck with it. But balance can be put in or taken out of scenarios as people wish.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/9/2010 8:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I think you have actually reinforced Mike's point. 'Balance' can not be taken out of the game engine, so everybody gets stuck with it. But balance can be put in or taken out of scenarios as people wish. YES! Somebody "gets it". Make the basic game engine as accurate as possible, and you can drive it anywhere. Screw it up in the name of "balance" and you are stuck in the same place forever...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625