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

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 11:57:25 AM)
Still hoping someone on the design team will confirm/deny the "80" skill threshold for "skip bombing".

Nemo121 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 1:48:17 PM)
Apart from the whole issue of what it entailed and how it is balanced could someone just clarify what skills are useful for the mission? It seems to me that for low-level attacks low level naval attack would have to be trained for ( so set your bombers at 1,000 feet and train them 100% ) but for attack bombers to benefit from their strafing power would one also have to specifically train for that?

spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 2:07:28 PM)
I've been thinking about this type of attack and it actually seems to encompass two different types of attack (or does it): 1)skip-bombing, actually bouncing the bomb off the water at an extremely acute angle (as practiced by 5th AF) where the bomb is dropped to enter the side of the ship and/or 2)low level "masthead" bombing (as practiced by the USN and others) where the bomb is dropped from an aircraft in a shallow glide but intended to enter the ship through the deck. It would seem the skill sets needed would be different for each. Perhaps the strafing skill at 100 ft would be best for skip-bombing whereas the naval attack at 1000 ft would be better for masthead bombing.

spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 2:14:36 PM)
I forgot to add: For skip-bombing the attack would be made from the beam of the ship. It would less effective against armored ships because for any given class the armor in the belt would most likely be thicker than the armor in the deck. For masthead bombing the attack would be made from ahead or (better) astern since the target would be bigger stem to stern than across the beams.

SuluSea -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 4:18:53 PM)
A small test by my attack bombers shows 1 hit in 3 separate attacks at 100% naval attack for the 14 planes against AKLs escorted by a few PBs. I've lost more pilots than ships hit goiing against these lightly defended targets, defense is generally in the 60s. The pilots are trained up to 70-71 with 3 at mid 60 or higher in low naval bombing, strafing is still low 20s but it seems 6 or so pilots get bumped up every attack. Hopefully this picks up but if it doesn't in the future I'll just use these planes for training using other attack methods. For now I pulled them back for more training. It seems at first glance the Kate bombing and attack bombers accuracy is completely reversed.

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 4:31:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea A small test by my attack bombers shows 1 hit in 3 separate attacks at 100% naval attack for the 14 planes against AKLs escorted by a few PBs. I've lost more pilots than ships hit goiing against these lightly defended targets, defense is generally in the 60s. The pilots are trained up to 70-71 with 3 at mid 60 or higher in low naval bombing, strafing is still low 20s but it seems 6 or so pilots get bumped up every attack. Hopefully this picks up but if it doesn't in the future I'll just use these planes for training using other attack methods. For now I pulled them back for more training. It seems at first glance the Kate bombing and attack bombers accuracy is completely reversed. I´ve used my attack bombers for airfield attacks and 48 bombers usually achieve 1-2 hits on the runway... they´re all very low in strafe skill (of course they are when you can´t train bomber pilots to strafe = 1st oversight IMO) and it seems to me that the only skill used in 100ft attacks is STRAFE, which means you would be better off to put FIGHTER pilots into your attack bombers. Haven´t tried it yet but that´s the next thing I´m going to do, using fighter pilots with strafe skill in my attack bombers. [8\|] just to point it out, if you use 48 B-25C level bombers at 10,000ft you usally get a couple of dozen hits without having them trained at all, so achieving 1-2 hits from 100ft without having them trained is pretty odd... as it is now, you´re just screwed for having the new feature of attack bombers because with normal medium level bombers you would be ten times better off... hey, ho, thank god I don´t get a single medium level bomber anymore for the USAAF, only unusable attack bombers. The fact that they gain NAVAL skill during a 100ft airfield attack is just another flaw that I don´t really care about, that happens when you set them to nav attack as primary and airfield attack as secondary mission. They gain strafe skill and nav attack (not even lownav from attacking an AIRFIELD at 100ft)...

crsutton -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 4:53:15 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. You are dead on here. The game really needs a rework to throw out all of the fantasy aspects. Let the modders then introduce scenarios for balance and fun. I really want an accurate historical simultation. Always have. Ok, so nobody wants to play a historical simulation as Japan. But, at least it is there as a base game and the modders can juice it up.

crsutton -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 5:03:40 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. No I can't buy into that. Perhaps heavy bombers but I doubt that as well. [image]local://upfiles/8095/03223962FEC7477D9F294D32AA5D7BBB.jpg[/image]

spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 5:41:30 PM)
quote: 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. Several major Japanese naval bases were devastated by low flying attackers (including heavy bombers)...Rabaul, Truk and Kure amongst them. They all had plenty of warning that there was a war was going on. Either the Japanese didn't use them or they had a shortage of them...there are quite a few photos of Japanese ships under attack in the aforementioned harbors yet I can't recall ever having seen a barrage balloon in any of them. Doesn't mean they weren't there but seems to indicate they were not effective.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 5:42:16 PM)
quote: 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. Didn't carrier aircraft decimate Truk on at least one occasion. I am sure they were lower than 6,000 feet. got to think barrage balloons would work just as well on TB's and DB's. If they Japanese didn't have barrage balloons at Truk they must have been in short supply. I think they did they same thing at Rubaul on a number of occasions. I heard that where most SBD losses occurred.

Rainer -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 6:33:06 PM)
quote: 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. That's a strange logic (read: faulty). The game engine should not allow attacks against prepared enemy positions? What kind of game would that be?

Nemo121 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 6:35:54 PM)
As with anything the arguments devolve into "shouldn't"/"should" type matches. In reality in any realistic simulation anything which was physically possible according to the laws of physics should be allowed BUT if you do something which would have been a bad idea in real life ( attacking into barrage balloons at 1,000 feet ) then you should be punished for it. Nothing should be banned but the consequences of actions should be modelled.

Rainer -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 6:40:57 PM)
Right [:)]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 7:19:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton 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. No I can't buy into that. Perhaps heavy bombers but I doubt that as well. [image]local://upfiles/8095/03223962FEC7477D9F294D32AA5D7BBB.jpg[/image] Love the photo..., perfect rebuttal. The truth seems to have been that the Japanese were rarely "prepared" for ANYTHING after December, 1941. A good supply of barrage balloons and the units to operate them seem to have been just another in a great number of shortages Japan fought the war with.

witpqs -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 7:32:13 PM)
As mentioned earlier, the game does model barrage balloons and people have seen casualties to them. I remember one being posted early after the release of AE with some excitement by the poster.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 10:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs As mentioned earlier, the game does model barrage balloons and people have seen casualties to them. I remember one being posted early after the release of AE with some excitement by the poster. They add a touch of "color" to the reporting whether they were at the location historically or not. But they certainly weren't a ubiquitous enough presence anywhere in the Pacific War to justify herwin's suggestion...

witpqs -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/16/2010 10:32:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs As mentioned earlier, the game does model barrage balloons and people have seen casualties to them. I remember one being posted early after the release of AE with some excitement by the poster. They add a touch of "color" to the reporting whether they were at the location historically or not. But they certainly weren't a ubiquitous enough presence anywhere in the Pacific War to justify herwin's suggestion... And since they are accounted for in the game, one would have to show that they are badly accounted for to justify banning low-level attacks. AE has done away with the need for house rules of this sort. Pilot training is segregated by type and (for naval and ground attacks) by altitude. Flak Does work. I recently had a port attacked that was stacked with AA units. Even though only 41 total dive bombers were reported as attacking (two waves) in the combat report, 45 were reported destroyed by flak that day. The defenses work. No need for those house rules.

jomni -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 7:39:51 AM)
I use skip bombing with caution because I fear an increase in casualtes. Is this a valid assumption? And I would think that US bombers are better because they have more armor and face inferior flak. Skip bombing by Japanese is suicide right?

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 9:17:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni I use skip bombing with caution because I fear an increase in casualtes. Is this a valid assumption? And I would think that US bombers are better because they have more armor and face inferior flak. Skip bombing by Japanese is suicide right? why should it be suicide? Because they attack at 100ft instead of 200ft like all Betties/Nells/Kate with torps do?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 12:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: jomni I use skip bombing with caution because I fear an increase in casualtes. Is this a valid assumption? And I would think that US bombers are better because they have more armor and face inferior flak. Skip bombing by Japanese is suicide right? why should it be suicide? Because they attack at 100ft instead of 200ft like all Betties/Nells/Kate with torps do? It's not exactly suicide..., but it's a lot different than releasing a torpedo several hundred to a thousand yards from the target. Even then Betties and Nells took a beating if the TF had good flak. To skip bomb you have to fly right over the target..., not a healthy proposition for a lightly built A/C with a thousand gallons of AvGas in it's unprotected wing tanks..., especially one without massive forward armament to suppress the target's AAA

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 12:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: jomni I use skip bombing with caution because I fear an increase in casualtes. Is this a valid assumption? And I would think that US bombers are better because they have more armor and face inferior flak. Skip bombing by Japanese is suicide right? why should it be suicide? Because they attack at 100ft instead of 200ft like all Betties/Nells/Kate with torps do? It's not exactly suicide..., but it's a lot different than releasing a torpedo several hundred to a thousand yards from the target. Even then Betties and Nells took a beating if the TF had good flak. To skip bomb you have to fly right over the target..., not a healthy proposition for a lightly built A/C with a thousand gallons of AvGas in it's unprotected wing tanks..., especially one without massive forward armament to suppress the target's AAA don´t mix up real life with the game. I´m aware about the difference between torp attacks and skip bombing in real life, but what makes you sure that the game treats the torpedo as a "standoff weapon". Making a guess, I would say the game only looks at the altitude and not at the distance the weapon is released.

John Lansford -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 2:51:58 PM)
Every time I send my attack bombers to hit an airfield/port, I see the "B-25D1 damaged by barrage balloon" note. I've attacked Rabaul, Truk, Kwajalein and Ambon with them and there are apparently barrage balloons at all these bases. Is there a certain base size and supply requirement before barrage balloons show up, or are they automatic at all bases?

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 3:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Every time I send my attack bombers to hit an airfield/port, I see the "B-25D1 damaged by barrage balloon" note. I've attacked Rabaul, Truk, Kwajalein and Ambon with them and there are apparently barrage balloons at all these bases. Is there a certain base size and supply requirement before barrage balloons show up, or are they automatic at all bases? IIRC it depends on what base forces are at the base. There´s a difference in the balloons they use though, with different alts, can´t remember the alts though. Flying at 10,000ft means not meeting any balloons nor anything lighter than 75mm flak. Of course you can´t attack at 10,000ft with attack bombers. Are you hitting something with your bombers and if so, which skill is used?

witpqs -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 3:43:45 PM)
I believe it's size and (maybe) supply. I do not know the size criteria.

crsutton -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 4:57:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs As mentioned earlier, the game does model barrage balloons and people have seen casualties to them. I remember one being posted early after the release of AE with some excitement by the poster. Yes, and the occurance is infrequent enough to represent the fact that they were either not the best defense or not enough of them. I like to send my heavies in at about 7,000 feet and maybe have lost one or two to barrage ballons. This is about what I would expect.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 5:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy don´t mix up real life with the game. I´m aware about the difference between torp attacks and skip bombing in real life, but what makes you sure that the game treats the torpedo as a "standoff weapon". Making a guess, I would say the game only looks at the altitude and not at the distance the weapon is released. "Real Life" is the only yardstick we have to judge the game by. And the Japanese simply lacked any A/C rugged enough and well-armed enough to practice "skip bombing". It was an Allied specialty, period.

SuluSea -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/18/2010 6:29:20 PM)
I copied and pasted this to notepad awhile back, a response from Michealm in the barrage balloons thread. quote: The Balloon effect is determined by maximum value of (a) plus (b) below. The overall maximum of the sum is 9. (a) Balloons are present in a base if the AF + port > 6. The value is the fort level of the hex. (b) Balloons can be added to a base/LCU by creating a device of type BALLOON. The value is the number of devices. [not currently in use] They affect aircraft flying below 6000'. Twin-engine or higher planes increase the number of balloons by 4. Balloon level is not reported but is usually the fort level if the combined value of the base is >6. Pilot experience should help to avoid balloons (except for the bug I just found which is not always using the right pilot!!!)

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/19/2010 7:39:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy don´t mix up real life with the game. I´m aware about the difference between torp attacks and skip bombing in real life, but what makes you sure that the game treats the torpedo as a "standoff weapon". Making a guess, I would say the game only looks at the altitude and not at the distance the weapon is released. "Real Life" is the only yardstick we have to judge the game by. And the Japanese simply lacked any A/C rugged enough and well-armed enough to practice "skip bombing". It was an Allied specialty, period. yeah, but since when do you think that this game is real life?[&:] Do you KNOW that 200ft torp attacks are treated as standoff attacks in the game and therefore wouldn´t suffer as much as a 100ft skip bombing attack or do you THINK it should be that way in the game because it is in real life? I´m not arguing about real life, I just don´t believe that there´s a difference between 100ft bombing and 200ft torping in the game. I could be wrong about it of course, never heard about it though and therefore would say there is no difference (even if I would hope to be wrong).

castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/19/2010 2:19:56 PM)
I don´t know what´s going on with attack bombers but they really seem to be completely borked. That´s happening in my PBEM now: Afternoon Air attack on Tulagi , at 114,137 Weather in hex: Light rain Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Allied aircraft B-25D1 Mitchell x 16 No Allied losses Aircraft Attacking: 16 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet Port Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb the replay showed STRAFING. And now look at which skills improved, ground bomb [8\|] and strafe. I can only advise every Allied PBEM player NOT to have his B-25C upgrading, then you will still get 20 B-25 level bombers each month and not non working attack bombers. Attack bomber, bombing from 10000ft, strafing at the same time, not hitting anything, improved skill "strafe" and "grd"... it´s borked. [image]local://upfiles/13774/BFBCD9E6931B46C9BBCCF224AB2F6254.jpg[/image]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/19/2010 3:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy yeah, but since when do you think that this game is real life?[&:] Nobody gets killed, so it isn't real life. But the only yardstick we have to judge if it succeeds as a "game" about the War in the Pacific is the actual history of that war. If events in the game can't duplicate events in reality, then the game is "borked" (as you put it). And the success the Allies had with low-level/skip bombing in reality are not being re-created by the "game"..., so the "game" has a problem.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.436523