BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (Full Version)

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

Message

Nemo121 -> BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 12:20:44 AM)
I'd like to start this thread to continue a discussion 1EyedJacks and I have been having about B-17s in the early war, particularly as I'm seeing a different side of the same stick in my 1945 game. I'd like to invite anyone to contribute as 1EyedJacks in particular wants to build up a picture of others' experience with 4-engined bombers both commanding and opposing them. I'll start by putting my views on them down as a starting point and also suggest some possible solutions and pitfalls of others I've heard. 1. Bomber durability for four-engined bombers is very high such that it is extremely difficult indeed to down them unless you have multiple cannons ( 4 x 20mm is best, 2 x 20mm will simply not do the job ). 2. Bomber defensive armament has the same accuracy as front-mounted weapons on fighters. What this means is that all bomber defensive positions have the same chance of hitting your fighter as your fighter does of hitting them with front-mounted weapons. What this often results in is a fighter which is damaged by bomber fire before it ever gets into position to fire. 3. In recent raids in 1942 on Singapore my B-17s have been getting 10:1 + kill rates vs fighters. Admittedly most of these fighters are Oscars armed with MGs but while I don't doubt the B-17s should survive such peashooters I'm not sure a 10:1 kill ratio is right either. Right now the B-17s are my best fighters. 4. Once the Japanese get a good number of cannon-armed fighters available they WILL mob and take down B-17s, 24s and -29s. When cannon-armed fighters meet 300 B29s on 1:1 terms in 1945 I reasonably expect 30 to 40 B29s to be shot down ( if unescorted ). That seems fairly reasonable to me. If anything it seems a bit low actually but more of that anon. Basically B-17s, 24 and 29s tend to be able to destroy too large a number of enemy fighters and this is ahistorical. Personally I feel their lack of vulnerability to FlAK is pretty reasonable as is their survivability vs multiple MG-armed fighters. I do balk at seeing those fighters shot down in droves though. I don't remember that happening in the war. Given that bomber durability and armour is, IMO, something which would impact on FlAK losses etc and since FlAK seems to be working reasonably well ( IMO ) I don't want a fix which changes FlAK losses. Neither do I want a fix which makes B-17s etc less resistant to damage. I do, however, want them to stop shooting down attacking fighters in droves. It seems to me that defensive armament comes in three forms: 1. Stabilised, purpose-built turrets with reasonable aiming aids. 2. A gun sticking through a window with little aiming or stabilisation except that given by its mounting in the window. ( semi-stabilised ) 3. A gun sticking out the side of the plane with no stabilisation at all ( B17 side guns ). It seems fairly evident to me that the accuracy of those 3 gun stations wouldn't be the same. The fully stabilised would be better than the other two and the gun sticking out a door would be worst. In-game though they all have the same accuracy as calibrated guns firing from the wings of a fighter. \|Previously I posted a fairly detailed account of weight of fire put out by various fighter types in WW2 to explain why some were so much better at taking down B-17s. Basically it worked out that an Fw-190A8/R1 could put out as much fire in 2 seconds as a Ki-43 II would put out in about 45 seconds. Obviously your odds of being hit by return fire in 45 seconds of firing were much greater than in a 2 second burst etc etc. So, in EA Armaggedon ( which should be popping out in a day or two ) I have adopted the following Ks to accuracy : 1. Stabilised ( All B-29 turrets, top and ball and tail turrets in the B-17 etc ) Accuracy is halved. 2. Partially stabilised ( rear-mounted guns fired by the rear gunners in Vals, Kates or the bombardier guns in the early B-17s ) Accuracy reduced by 3/4. 3. Unstabilised guns ( side guns on B17s etc ) Accuracy reduced by 7/8s. You can still get weight of fire forcing planes to turn away but now you don't get nearly so many attacking planes going down in flames because of damage before they ever get into firing position. Over time it results in a lot more firing passes by planes, lots of accuring damage to four-engined bombers and lots more opportunities for them to hit back at fighters. Fighters DO still go down but no longer do they go down before they even get a shot off. Overall I think casualties rise a bit for the bombers and stay reasonably similar for the fighters but it has a more "realistic" feel to it - I know that isn't a great arbiter but you know what I mean. In terms of keeping bomber squadrons flying and hitting the target. High LAND attack skill and Inspiration are essential as are spare planes. With spare planes in the unit you might be able to get an 8 plane squadron ( with 2 reserves ) to fly daily with 5 planes instead of being consigned to having only 3 planes serviceable after the first day's mission. That slight increase in reserves results in a significantly larger increase in power at the tip of the spear.

scott64 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 1:43:49 AM)
I agree. My Oscars IIc, Nicks, Tonys, and Tojo can not shoot any down. Might be lucky and shoot one down every three or four months. [:@] Meanwhile my land forces are being torn up. [:(]

Disco Duck -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 1:51:42 AM)
First off. If you are attacking a BUFF you are probably getting shot at from multiple angles. Not only from the plane you are attacking but the other planes in the formation. I don't know how you would model that. I haven't done a lot of reading on the B-17 in a long time but I seem to recall Japanese fighters ignoring bomber formations as much as they can. In one of my old books there was a story of a B17 on a recon mission being attacked by five fighters and still making it home in one piece. I think a better fix if not allowing the Japanese fighters to attack a bomber formation unless they have a high skill and a good commander. I did find this comment from the Boeing site " in the Pacific, the planes earned a deadly reputation with the Japanese, who dubbed them "four-engine fighters."

Captain Cruft -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 1:53:08 AM)
Agree totally. What is a BUFF though?

CapAndGown -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 2:21:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scott1964 I agree. My Oscars IIc, Nicks, Tonys, and Tojo can not shoot any down. Might be lucky and shoot one down every three or four months. [:@] Meanwhile my land forces are being torn up. [:(] I guess you need to try harder. Just ask my opponent: he has lost lots of 4E bombers. Before the Franks and Georges showed up, Nicks and Tojos (I never built any Oscars after the Tojo came on line) were often causing 10% casualties. Now, if the airfield is not thoroughly swept (and I mean thoroughly) ahead of time, Georges, Tojos and Franks can easily cause 20-30% casualties against B-24s. (B-17s are tougher - more durability) Also, I am not seeing too many kills by 4E bombers now. A6M2s would die rather often, but they only had a durability of 22. My Nicks didn't die and because of their high durability kept on firing even after taking damage. Nemo: check your ops report. What you may be seeing when you lose fighters to B-29s are pilots deliberately ramming the bomber.

bradfordkay -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 2:28:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Agree totally. What is a BUFF though? Big Ugly Fat F(ellow)

witpqs -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 2:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: scott1964 I agree. My Oscars IIc, Nicks, Tonys, and Tojo can not shoot any down. Might be lucky and shoot one down every three or four months. [:@] Meanwhile my land forces are being torn up. [:(] I guess you need to try harder. Just ask my opponent: he has lost lots of 4E bombers. Before the Franks and Georges showed up, Nicks and Tojos (I never built any Oscars after the Tojo came on line) were often causing 10% casualties. Now, if the airfield is not thoroughly swept (and I mean thoroughly) ahead of time, Georges, Tojos and Franks can easily cause 20-30% casualties against B-24s. (B-17s are tougher - more durability) Also, I am not seeing too many kills by 4E bombers now. A6M2s would die rather often, but they only had a durability of 22. My Nicks didn't die and because of their high durability kept on firing even after taking damage. Nemo: check your ops report. What you may be seeing when you lose fighters to B-29s are pilots deliberately ramming the bomber. Yeah, when I first read this thread I thought "you need some schooling from my opponent!" [X(]

ckk -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 4:45:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Agree totally. What is a BUFF though? Big Ugly Fat F(ellow) [/quote Close[;)][:D]

bigred -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 4:56:18 AM)
http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this.

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 6:36:52 AM)
This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers... ------------------------------------------------------ Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84 Weather in hex: Severe storms Japanese aircraft Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10 Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 19 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11 Allied aircraft B-17D Fortress x 3 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 3 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 10000 Raid is overhead 24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 10000 Raid is overhead 64th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 11000 Raid is overhead 77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 8000 Raid is overhead 77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 9000 Raid is overhead 260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 10 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 8000 Raid is overhead 264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (11 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 11 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 11000 Raid is overhead Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes ----------------------------------------------------------------- I literally have 40 aircraft in the air against 3 B-17s... That's a 13:1 ratio. The 4Es are coming in @ 8k. My fighters are @ 12k so they have the bounce. I also have 3 Heavy AA units @ Singapore. The raid is spotted about 10 minutes out. They successfully made their bombing run - they just didn't hit anything. The result is two B-17s damaged... Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run... I'm less sure about the AAA fire... There are only 3 bombers. Each of my AA units has 18 75mm flak guns - that's 18 guns per bomber... But I think large guns really can't aim @ a B-17 coming in @ 8k. I'm pretty sure in WWII they laid "curtains of fire" with deflection/quadrant settings to lay fire missions to cover specific targets. This would be much like haveing presets for priority targets. 54 tubes (and that's just the heavy stuff) makes a pretty nice curtain...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 6:48:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers... ------------------------------------------------------ Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84 Weather in hex: Severe storms Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run... Does the part I bolded matter?

Puhis -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 6:48:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bigred http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this. Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game...

Puhis -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 7:02:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers... ------------------------------------------------------ Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84 Weather in hex: Severe storms Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run... Does the part I bolded matter? Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms...

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 7:07:22 AM)
What really provided defense for the B-17s were combat formations. the early ones were combat "boxes" that provided interlocking zones of coverage and would allow the opportunity for several bombers to attack targets simaltaniously. These bomber formations still took losses (sometimes heavy losses) which was why the US was so keen on coming up with a good escort fighter. Here is a fairly good link that I found in regards to formations... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_box I really don't have too much heartache over large groups of bombers taking limited losses. To me that is consistant with defensive strategies that were used in WWII. But a lot of those B-17s that returned to their home field wound up in the bone-yard to be stripped for parts... I just have some questions in regards to the mechanics of the game... What are reasonable "operations losses" for 4E bombers? Does the Service Rating (4 for B-17s) feel "right" for how quickly damaged bombers are repaired and returned to service? When Navigators are making the bombing run should not AAA be more effective? My AA units seem to "slooooooowly" increase the experience levels... Is this observation shared by other players? I assume EXP has an effect on AAA fire... It does - doesn't it? How

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 7:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers... ------------------------------------------------------ Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84 Weather in hex: Severe storms Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run... Does the part I bolded matter? All I can say is that the combat simulations took a looooong time for this attack so I assume most of those 40 fighters flying CAP got in several attacks. Most of the messages were to the effect of "Oscar/Nick driven away by defensive fire." I often see fighter leave a fight because they are out of ammo. Has anyone ever seen a bomber run out of ammo? I would think that even with pea-shooters those Oscars at 10:1 odds against the bombers should make an aweful lot of small dents/holes in those planes... The Nicks are about 3:1 and should be able to put much bigger holes in those 4E bombers if they can attack without being driven away. Andthen there are the 3 AAA units @ the base that should have engaged the 3 bombers...

FatR -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 7:26:42 AM)
That 4E bombers are ahistorically overpowered is a fact. The best that pre-B-29 bombers achieved against Japanese fighters was in battles of B-24s against Ki-43s (both flying in small formations, with fighters usually outnumbered) in Burma, with loss ratio of roughly 1:1. Against the same Ki-43s when the latter had numerical superiority of several to one in a few engagements, B-24s were massacred. This just doesn't happen in AE. Whether this is needed to balance the game, I don't know.

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 7:43:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 It seems to me that defensive armament comes in three forms: 1. Stabilised, purpose-built turrets with reasonable aiming aids. 2. A gun sticking through a window with little aiming or stabilisation except that given by its mounting in the window. ( semi-stabilised ) 3. A gun sticking out the side of the plane with no stabilisation at all ( B17 side guns ). The 50 cal manual sites are really bogus. I don't know if you've ever fired a 50 before but you don't really "aim" it like a rifle - instead you point in the general direction and "walk" your fire into the target. With tracer rounds it's pretty easy to do against a stationary target (from personal experience). It gets more difficult if you are manning a gun against a moving target while in a vehicle. I can't imagine it's any better in a B-17... There are other factors at play in operating a 50 cal... The barrels get hot fast so you have to fire in fairly short bursts. Ammo was in short supply (see these stats - http://www.b17.org/history/specs.asp ). Now I'm pretty sure most crews kept spare belt ammo for the waist guns but I don't think a gunner can add/replace ammo for the nose and tail turrets... 5,000 rounds of 50 Cal ammo is probably around 500 lbs... I would think crew experience on a B-17 would be a bigger factor in achieving the kind of defensive fire that would "drive away" an enemy fighter...

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 8:16:29 AM)
From http://www.b17.org/history/specs.asp - Between 1935 and May of 1945, 12,732 B-17s were produced. Of these aircraft, 4,735 were lost during combat missions. so about 1/3 were lost in combat missions. That's not (if I read this correctly) inclusive of those B-17s that returned safely to their base but had taken so much damge they were scrapped for parts...

JeffroK -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 8:51:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: bigred http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this. Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game... Change to - Martin Caiden's book, Samurai. You will always get extremes on both sides, there is always a "die roll" affecting the result plus so many modifiers that you cant guaratee the same result twice in a row. I like Nemo121's approach, it would be good to see how it pans out. Another thought is to increase the servicing rate for B17 and early B24, it seems it took a year + to get them in the air in numbers, until then, except for rare occasions, raids consisted of only 3-6 aircraft. PS The real BUFF was the B52.

janh -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 9:25:27 AM)
Nemo analysis is quite right -- I caught myself misusing the B-17 in 1942 not only to close AI airfields, but essentially sweep them. I was wondering whether the experience of the B-17 sqrns should be lowered at the start of the game as well. As far as I recall from any of the books and reports I read, McArthur employed the Fortresses in the first two years primarily for (naval) recon, and much less for airfield bombing, right? Now, why was that? I think the modification you propose, Nemo, might be quite well on the mark. The only drawback will be for AI, which all the time sends its Netties, Bettys, Fortresses and other bombers with ranges >> than any escort fighter on unescorted suicide missions to targets it should know to be CAPped -- against a human player this would only result in much worse slaughter unless the AI routines are improved. However, that is no reason not to fix the above disparity, though.

Puhis -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 10:31:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK You will always get extremes on both sides, there is always a "die roll" affecting the result plus so many modifiers that you cant guaratee the same result twice in a row. Yes, that was my point anyway. Extreme examples are not very useful. I think 4E bombers are bit too strong and too hard to shot down. But my main concern is that 4E bombers (or all long range planes) can fly a way too often. For example distance from Luganville to Shortland is at least 1500 km, so there and back is about 9-10 hour flight. I think it's impossible that same plane or crew could fly that same mission next day, or day after day. Of course this is true with japanese long range planes too. The game can't model this kind of long missions. Plane/pilot fatigue as it is now is not enough.

herwin -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 10:42:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK You will always get extremes on both sides, there is always a "die roll" affecting the result plus so many modifiers that you cant guaratee the same result twice in a row. Yes, that was my point anyway. Extreme examples are not very useful. I think 4E bombers are bit too strong and too hard to shot down. But my main concern is that 4E bombers (or all long range planes) can fly a way too often. For example distance from Luganville to Shortland is at least 1500 km, so there and back is about 9-10 hour flight. I think it's impossible that same plane or crew could fly that same mission next day, or day after day. Of course this is true with japanese long range planes too. The game can't model this kind of long missions. Plane/pilot fatigue as it is now is not enough. WinBUGS is a very nice tool for analysing these kind of Monte Carlo systems. Over time as you collect data, you can update your model using Bayesian computation. After a while, you get an overall picture that submerges the effect of the modifiers and allows you to predict the distribution of outcomes. I've been using it to understand LCU combat dynamics.

Puhis -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 11:04:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK You will always get extremes on both sides, there is always a "die roll" affecting the result plus so many modifiers that you cant guaratee the same result twice in a row. Yes, that was my point anyway. Extreme examples are not very useful. I think 4E bombers are bit too strong and too hard to shot down. But my main concern is that 4E bombers (or all long range planes) can fly a way too often. For example distance from Luganville to Shortland is at least 1500 km, so there and back is about 9-10 hour flight. I think it's impossible that same plane or crew could fly that same mission next day, or day after day. Of course this is true with japanese long range planes too. The game can't model this kind of long missions. Plane/pilot fatigue as it is now is not enough. WinBUGS is a very nice tool for analysing these kind of Monte Carlo systems. Over time as you collect data, you can update your model using Bayesian computation. After a while, you get an overall picture that submerges the effect of the modifiers and allows you to predict the distribution of outcomes. I've been using it to understand LCU combat dynamics. Really, why are you doing that, may I ask? To be able to exploit game mechanics? I admit that statistics can be fun, but I want to play the damn game. And I don't need statistics to tell me that Emilys of B-24s flying 10-15 hour missions can't do it every day IRL...

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 11:12:59 AM)
One other thing which I think plays into this issue is that the Japanese fighters often have mixed armament - several MGs, a couple of cannon. Rarely are they "all or nothing" fighters of the British or American ilk ( ALL MGs or ALL cannon ). The more I played the more I became convinced that airplane combat was conducted with per line checking of accuracy - IOW if you hit with the MGs you didn't necessarily hit with the cannon that your Zeroes were carrying. Statistically if you attacked a bomber stream with Zeroes your hits will likely to break down to be 2/3rd MGs and 1/3rd cannon. This has the effect of making it look like people are getting lots of good hits with cannon-armed fighters which leads people to expect the bombers should be downed whereas, in fact, probably 2/3rds of those hits are just shooting tiny ventilation holes in the fuselage and doing nothing to make the bomber less airworthy. To test this out in a plane where it really hampers the plane's effectiveness I went to the Jack model which has 2 x 20mm cannon of slightly different types in two separate armament slots. One has accuracy 1 point greater than the other. I modded it so that that plane had 4 x 20mm cannon ( of the lower accuracy ) in a single armament slot. Suddenly the plane went from being decent to being a real downer of bombers. I ran this test a few times and found that this applied routinely. Accordingly when it made sense to do so I've modded fighters such that instead of having cannon on two lines they have it on one line and that some of the later-war planes with mixed armament - a couple of 30mm, a couple of 20mm get nothing but 20mm cannon. Even when the actual firepower of a plane goes down on the plane details screen its actual combat effectiveness increases as, instead of having, perhaps 30% of that firepower hitting 70% of the time ( such that a George actually has no more firepower than an Oscar III most of the time ( 2 x 12.7mm MGs ) ) you have 100% of the slightly lesser firepower hitting 100% of the time. To compensate I've bumped up the number of B-29s arriving as replacements. I'll post the scenario tonight.

herwin -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 11:43:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK You will always get extremes on both sides, there is always a "die roll" affecting the result plus so many modifiers that you cant guaratee the same result twice in a row. Yes, that was my point anyway. Extreme examples are not very useful. I think 4E bombers are bit too strong and too hard to shot down. But my main concern is that 4E bombers (or all long range planes) can fly a way too often. For example distance from Luganville to Shortland is at least 1500 km, so there and back is about 9-10 hour flight. I think it's impossible that same plane or crew could fly that same mission next day, or day after day. Of course this is true with japanese long range planes too. The game can't model this kind of long missions. Plane/pilot fatigue as it is now is not enough. WinBUGS is a very nice tool for analysing these kind of Monte Carlo systems. Over time as you collect data, you can update your model using Bayesian computation. After a while, you get an overall picture that submerges the effect of the modifiers and allows you to predict the distribution of outcomes. I've been using it to understand LCU combat dynamics. Really, why are you doing that, may I ask? To be able to exploit game mechanics? I admit that statistics can be fun, but I want to play the damn game. And I don't need statistics to tell me that Emilys of B-24s flying 10-15 hour missions can't do it every day IRL... It's a intentional way of doing what you do when you learn a game. I find it very frustrating not to be able to transfer real-world experience to a game because there's divergence between reality and the game engine. Being able to pick out the statistical differences between models allows me to adjust my play to the game. It also allows me to treat the game as a theory about how things happen and falsify it. For example, I know the statistical distribution of relative casualty fractions in real one-day WWII battles--a research project from 30 years ago--and I can use it as a Bayesian prior and develop a posterior distribution for the game using the outcome of game battles. The two are very different.

castor troy -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 3:48:46 PM)
The 4E in the game are such beasts that you�re most times better off sending them in alone instead of sending a heavy escort with them. Just had a a stupid example of the air routine that saw 75 highly skilled/exp P-38J escorting two dozen Liberators, meeting 6 George and a dozen Zekes over the target. You would expect a bloody massacre, same as happened in real life when such forces met, the end result was a stupid never ending dive for the defending Japanese fighters, downing 22 P-38J for one Zeke shot down and a couple more being damaged. Lol, send in the bombers alone and I expect to lose one or at best two of the bombers and I would trade two Liberators any time for 22 P-38J. As the game is, you�re better off sending in bombers without ANY escort, very realistic and historical accurate.

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 4:02:11 PM)
Well if the P38s are consigned to close escort ( which is what escort is in the model ) they are a lot more vulnerable. If you set them to sweep with the same target then they will adopt a freijagd and be much less vulnerable.

PaxMondo -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 4:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckk quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Agree totally. What is a BUFF though? Big Ugly Fat F(ellow) [/quote Close[;)][:D] +1 [:D]

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 5:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 Well if the P38s are consigned to close escort ( which is what escort is in the model ) they are a lot more vulnerable. If you set them to sweep with the same target then they will adopt a freijagd and be much less vulnerable. Castor said he had 75 fighters VS 18 enemy fighters - better than 3:1 odds. And he lost what - about 18% of his escort flight? And in return shot down 1 zeke? That is a baaaad day. But the George has a gun value of 20 - accuracy of the 4 20mm guns is 23 percent and the 7.7mm is 52%. Top speed on the George is 363 and it has the "bounce" so with a dive the Georges/Zekes are probably closing @ 450mph? B-24s have a cruising speed of 200 and max of 278 so my WAG is Escorts/Bombers are probably cruising between 225-250mph. Fionn is probably right about the sweep tho. And now the P38Js can use their speed advantage (max speed is 421). On a sweep mission Castor would get the bounce if he flew his sweep @ max altitude (44k). I often have challenges with sweeps going in after my bombers instead of b4 - and I've seen this happen when both my bombers and fighters were staged from the same base... <sigh!> Sometimes they don't even goto the show, sometimes they perform the sweep but the bombers never attack... Coordination is a crap shot so far in my game with Fionn. Still, Castor has a point - without escort he would have taken few losses and probably shot down more of the Japanese CAP. What I'm not sure about is how successful his bombers would have been in attacking their target.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (12/31/2010 5:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms... And at night. I think asking why non-specialized night fighters don't intercept, or B-17s don't hit from 8000 feet, in a severe storm AT NIGHT, is asking the wrong question. Better, what sort of fancy drugs were needed to get those crews into the air in the first place?

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875