RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (Full Version)

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

Message

LoBaron -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 12:27:37 PM)
You mean, you are bombed into oblivion by the AI and have not found a way around that? [&:] Sorry, but thats rather funny.

Puhis -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 12:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily. Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress. quote: Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits. Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about. [:'(] Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work. The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM. As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed. Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem.

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 1:41:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202 looking at this result posted by rader, and a bombardment mission posted by someone ages ago (with artillery) - both of them got ridiculous results... let's just agree (and yes, I know some people defend every bit of the game no matter whether it has any "common sense" involved or not) that the engine can't cope with a few possible scenarios that one can create if one exploits the engine.... - that 20,000 Japanese get killed in a artillery bombardment is equally, shall we say, "surprising" as is this bombing result.... - but B-29s never saw this mission type executed! and anyone who now quotes the Panzer-Lehr should mention the number of bombers involved in this attack and should tell me that the game engine was specifically modeled to reproduce this mission (just like the Doolittle raid eh?) so I believe as long as you don't "overdo" the engine and its capabilities the game will provide you with somewhat realistic results.... but all rader-games are far from reality.... - so if both players agree to a "away from any sort of reality" game then they must expect odd outcomes.... -just like the bombardment mission with arty in the jungle hex - it involved 100,000 troops and some 1500 guns or so on either side... I generally agree, but your last comment about arty in a jungle hex--arty wasn't much used in the jungle... In the OCS Burma game, Allied artillery is consolidated into brigades, for a couple of reasons--to limit their fire based on supply availability, and to remove them from direct support of the battalions and brigades. For similar reasons, Japanese artillery is essentially weak infantry.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 1:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem. In two complete GCs as Allies I have not seen the AI do this. I'm not going to say it never bombs in open terrain, but the ratio of these attacks versus ones on base hexes or naval atttacks is very, very small. I bomb LCUs in non-base hexes on at least a 20:1 or better ratio versus the AI's efforts. I also strafe in open terrain once I have P-47s. I can't recall the AI doing this at all. Nothing needs to be "fixed" to protect AI players from aerial hordes.

HansBolter -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 2:51:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily. Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress. quote: Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits. Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about. [:'(] Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work. The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM. As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed. Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem. Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above. And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules. And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic.

LoBaron -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 3:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above. And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules. And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic. Youre already using "ironman" and "historical" in the same sentence. THINK before you write please. That also applies to your other statement. I love playing WitP AE, whether PBEM or AI does not matter much, I just don´t have time for both and have the luck of good opponents. Noone says the game is perfect, all agree that you have to implement HRs on certain aspects to prevent a human player from exploiting extremes, everybody is aware that you have to be careful not to game the AI to enjoy a fun game. But thats it, not more not less. There are extremely few bugs left, those that are are either bearable or easy to avoid. This is because of people who love the game, and work on it without expecting money in return. I have not a whimp of patience for whiners who try to sell the same BS over and over again without understanding even the basic concepts. [:@]

USSAmerica -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 3:11:22 PM)
Keep LCU's out of open terrain when they are in range of enemy bombers! It's a dangerous place. Use the cover provided by other types of terrain for protection and know you are taking a big risk when you run them out into the open.

HansBolter -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 3:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above. And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules. And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic. Youre already using "ironman" and "historical" in the same sentence. THINK before you write please. That also applies to your other statement. I love playing WitP AE, whether PBEM or AI does not matter much, I just don´t have time for both and have the luck of good opponents. Noone says the game is perfect, all agree that you have to implement HRs on certain aspects to prevent a human player from exploiting extremes, everybody is aware that you have to be careful not to game the AI to enjoy a fun game. But thats it, not more not less. There are extremely few bugs left, those that are are either bearable or easy to avoid. This is because of people who love the game, and work on it without expecting money in return. I have not a whimp of patience for whiners who try to sell the same BS over and over again without understanding even the basic concepts. [:@] My, My.....let the personal attacks begin! [:-] Where exactly did I mention the word 'historical'? Why is it "me" whining when all I did was add content to a thread started by another? You really need to work on keeping that temper in check. Try counting to ten before hitting the 'post" button. Also, try pursuing your personal agenda against me in private rather than polluting the thread. ie...grow up!

LoBaron -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 3:50:02 PM)
You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot help you.

HansBolter -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 4:51:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot help you. No, I was using Ironman to point out yet another iteration, in addition to the others listed herein, of IMPLAUSIBLE behaviour. Obviously, ahistorical behaviour doesn't bother me a bit, or I wouldn't be playing Ironman. Thank you, by the way, for taking a deep breath and responding without vitriol.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 5:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot help you. Just for grins I looked in my Archive folder at about 80-90 days of 1942 combat reports from March to October in my non-Ironman, Scenario 2 game. I saw relatively few Chinese bombing runs. Those I see are mostly one unit, circa 15 plane attacks, often Lillys, against Chinese units in cities with forts. More than half of the Chinese strikes I obsered were against air bases, often where there were no or only a couple of planes. They scored a few runway hits, took a point or two of supply damage. LCU strikes often were in the 20-squads-disabled range of damage, with few or no KIAs. Certainly not divisions evaporating. The vast majority of the intense air warfare I saw--and it was intense--was in Burma, around Port Blair, as far north as Diamond Harbor and Calcutta, and a furious fight over Timor, which I lost. Many attacks occured, day in and day out as I fought a fighting retreat north towards Imphal and the AI moved its air units to try to stop me. Lots of naval strikes around Port Blair, which never fell, although I took major seaborne losses to keep it. I have no idea how others fight their 1942s, but in my case I saw lots of Japanese air activity. Just not in China. Why? I'm not sure, but I didn't try to fight much in China where I had no supplies. I fought like crazy in Burma and NE India, and the Japanese certainly came out to play.

LoBaron -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 5:33:08 PM)
Thanks for the details! Actually, where were at it, did you see any 4eng low level ground strikes? Just interested.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 5:50:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Thanks for the details! Actually, where were at it, did you see any 4eng low level ground strikes? Just interested. I just quickly ran through a week in early May 1942. Lots of air strikes. Multi-engine altitudes ranged from 5000 feet to 25,000, with 15, 000 being the most common. Night attacks were mostly by Bettys at 5000 or 6000. Day models varied, with Sallys, Lilys, and Nells being most common. A few morning attacks were at 6000 feet, mostly port attacks. Most airfield strikes were at 15,000 or higher. This week saw heavy bombing of both Soerbaja and Batavia, and concentrated on airfields and ports since Japanese troops were already in seige. There was also some activity at Kendari and in NE India, long-range stuff, mostly 15k or 17k. I didn't do any sort of tabulation, but it looks like the code varies level-bombing altitude at least directionally with weather. In my earlier, broader look today, I don't recall anything below 5000ft.

Cribtop -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 6:34:44 PM)
May I inquire what house rules y'all use to prevent going overboard?

PzB74 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 7:45:06 PM)
Just to top in my 2 c: Here's a result of Andy's last bombing run against Christmas Island - the worlds largest atoll with 6 forts! Morning Air attack on 54th Division, at 174,141 (Christmas Island) Weather in hex: Overcast Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 36 minutes Allied aircraft Avenger II x 26 Barracuda II x 18 Corsair II x 27 Hellcat I x 8 F4U-1A Corsair x 154 F6F-3 Hellcat x 309 SB2C-1C Helldiver x 162 TBF-1 Avenger x 7 TBM-1C Avenger x 213 Allied aircraft losses SB2C-1C Helldiver: 3 damaged SB2C-1C Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak TBM-1C Avenger: 3 damaged Japanese ground losses: 480 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 51 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 19th Army ... Also attacking 18th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking 4th Fleet ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 56th JNAF AF Unit ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 15th JNAF AF Unit ... Also attacking 5th Amphibious Bde /13 ... Also attacking 23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment ... Also attacking 18th Tank Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 144th Infantry RCT /1 ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking Yokosuka 3rd SNLF ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking Sasebo 6th SNLF ... Also attacking 5th JAAF AF Bn ... Also attacking 49th JNAF AF Unit ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 4th Air Division ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 19th Army ... Also attacking 18th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 19th Army ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 19th Army ... Also attacking 18th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking 4th Fleet ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 56th JNAF AF Unit ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 15th JNAF AF Unit ... Also attacking 5th Amphibious Bde /13 ... Also attacking 23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment ... Also attacking 18th Tank Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 144th Infantry RCT /1 ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking Sasebo 6th SNLF ... Also attacking 5th JAAF AF Bn ... Also attacking 49th JNAF AF Unit ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 4th Air Division ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 19th Army ... Also attacking 18th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment ... Also attacking 3rd IJN Special Coastal Gun Battalion ... Also attacking 19th Army ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment ... Also attacking 54th Division ... Also attacking 41st Infantry Regiment ... The unique Special Coastal Gun Battallion was almost destroyed by a single port attack..and this is the best mobile unit Japan got, and still it can be one shotted in a fort 6 base. If it had required 6 days to achieve this, ok - but 1 [&:] The bombardments by 2 Iowa class battleships on the other hand hardly scared our Phillippine chef's dog! To me it seems like sea and arty bombardments both have been nerfed; the former too much. Air bombing has way to high % percentage both against hard targets and ground targets (the latter especially applies to units not moving and not in clear terrain). I can hardly defend in Burma with 1-1 ground odds because Andy can simply bypass all hexes that provide enough cover for LBA to make a stand. And it's not like Allies got an uber air superiority; I just can't deploy my AF in forward field because all fields no matter size can be one shotted and closed by a moderate sized 4E formation. In real life Allies used fragmentation bombs to take out parked Jap ac and this shows that closing fields wasn't practical. A 50 mile hex is also quite large and you don't have one uber sized airfield in a base 7 airbase but 7 as I see it(of course you can abstract this but this is were things go wrong) . E.g. in Port Morseby they had the 2,3,5, 7 mile aerodromes etc. Closing down 1 field, yes - 7 no way! This is from Jap point of view and there are of course balancing issues to consider as well, but anyway, my advice would be to: Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving)

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 7:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop May I inquire what house rules y'all use to prevent going overboard? AI game.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 7:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB This is from Jap point of view and there are of course balancing issues to consider as well, but anyway, my advice would be to: Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving) You faced over 400 shooters and had 2 squads KIA? I don't see the beef. The hardware isn't mobile, and these were late-war DBs. Consider yourself lucky.

PzB74 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 8:01:30 PM)
In this game you can't destroy a squad before all squads in a unit has been damaged first. So each unit efficiently requires 2 hits before being destroyed; disabling them is just as efficient since there is no time to repair them before the battles to come. Since most of these troops would be inside bunkers or caves during attacks I hardly see how luck has anything to do with it. It's a miracle that the shooters found a parade they could decimate me thinks! Soldiers of the Yokosuka 4th SNLF marching through the Allied air attacks on Christmas Island [&o] [image]local://upfiles/1466/4B6E0BC01C904DCA97696BEFE0C391E6.jpg[/image]

witpqs -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 8:04:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing I am seeing both heavy and light sea bombardments in my PBM with a recent Beta patch. Sometimes they smoke the opposition, sometimes barely scratch them, sometimes in between. It would be a mistake to make sea bombardments some sort of guaranteed Thor's Hammer. I disagree with this suggestion. quote: Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving) I posted my observation a few times a number of months ago. It is my strong suspicion that performance is reasonable up to roughly pilot skill level 70. Then, as pilots gain skill above 70 the attack performance is simply too high. This applies to: (Including Low in all variants listed below) Naval attack (including torpedo) ASW Ground attack Airfield attack Maybe Port attack, but I have seen fewer so it is difficult to judge Regarding the various strategic attacks (city, refinery, etc.), I have seen too few to judge. It would be a mistake to only try to "nerf" the various ground attacks. The biggest issue seems to be to reduce performance benefit for skill levels above 70, making it more of diminishing returns.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 8:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB In this game you can't destroy a squad before all squads in a unit has been damaged first. So each unit efficiently requires 2 hits before being destroyed; disabling them is just as efficient since there is no time to repair them before the battles to come. Since most of these troops would be inside bunkers or caves during attacks I hardly see how luck has anything to do with it. It's a miracle that the shooters found a parade they could decimate me thinks! So there were some wounded. OK. Again over 400 (!!!!!) highly-accurate DBs and bombing TBs, late war pilots and ordnance. Level 6 forts aren't Level 9 forts, and are vulnerable. A CD unit isn't in a cave, even if the code modeled this type of detail, which we know it does not. I agree that a seige offers little time for disbled troops to recover; they are mission-killed unless the attacker himself pauses. But you have to give the attacker willing to invest an entire, large Air TF-worth of attackers some payoff. This was an alfa strike. I continue to maintain you did not suffer very much relatively speaking.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 8:17:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB Just to top in my 2 c: Here's a result of Andy's last bombing run against Christmas Island - the worlds largest atoll with 6 forts! If you consult an Atlas, I think you'll find that Kwajalein is the world's largest atoll. And if Christmas is an atoll, I would think you are over-stacked.

witpqs -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 8:22:00 PM)
Christmas Island is in-game as an atoll with unlimited stacking.

PzB74 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 8:38:32 PM)
My sea bombardments over the last 6months have hardly caused any ground casualties at all. Same with those coming the other way. Aircraft on the ground and ships in port are more likely to be hit. That's why I think we should keep an eye on this. No idea how much pilot skill affects hit ratio, I guess it would be a pilots ground attack rating that counted the mosy here. The CAG attacking Christmas Island were probably good pilots but ground attack is hardly their primary skill. 6 forts is more than what Iwo Jima had..Allies spent weeks using a much bigger air / sea bombardment force to attempt to suppress a much smaller target than Christmas Island. When soldiers watched major bombardments they were alwas convinced nothing could survive only to learn quite the opposite when they landed. What hasn't been mentioned here is thay disruption levels for xx tens of thousands of troops also is raised by 20-40%. The entire division attacked has 56% disruption now. I actually think rough terrain offers adequate protection in game, but I also think that 6 fort level should provide the same. Generalising is difficult though... And yes, it would perhaps be more correct to say that Xmas Island is the largest atoll in the game with regard to being the only one with unlimited stacking..[:)]

PresterJohn001 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 10:01:30 PM)
Damage against ground troops in clear terrain does seem too much, especially by the big 4e bombers. Same can be said for damage to airfields. I'm ok with the argument that this balances Japans ability to research and build aircraft but i don't buy it is justified by history.

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 10:41:32 PM)
The sea bombardments are also nuclear.

LoBaron -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 11:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I posted my observation a few times a number of months ago. It is my strong suspicion that performance is reasonable up to roughly pilot skill level 70. Then, as pilots gain skill above 70 the attack performance is simply too high. This applies to: (Including Low in all variants listed below) Naval attack (including torpedo) ASW Ground attack Airfield attack Maybe Port attack, but I have seen fewer so it is difficult to judge Regarding the various strategic attacks (city, refinery, etc.), I have seen too few to judge. It would be a mistake to only try to "nerf" the various ground attacks. The biggest issue seems to be to reduce performance benefit for skill levels above 70, making it more of diminishing returns. Exactly. I remember your posts on this topic, and it is very similar to what I mentioned a couple of times already. When skills (and aggression or exp) values surpass a certain threshold the results get off the scale. I do not know the exact formulas used, but I assume that a skill closing to 100 means a success roll in nearly every event, something not in accordance with reality. The only solution which makes sense is nerf skill gain, or find a way to change how the game engine uses skill variables in dice rolls. The second suggestion is, for everything I know about what can be done without tinkering with the code itself, impossible. The first would require rolling back skill gain mechanics to the early patches of WitP AE. If some care to remember: In the beginnings of AE there was an outcry to increase training speed, a suggestion which was finally implemented by the devs (and which I always opposed). Nerfing ground bombing would yield adverse results, I believe this can only be suggested if the impact is not thought through end to end.

LoBaron -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 11:11:36 PM)
This is a suggestion which might seem off at first glance, but I´d be willing to try it out in a test enviroment: Use every pilot skill *2/3 on dice roll. So a pilot with a displayed skill of 60 has a practical skill of 40 in the respective dice roll. Maybe unbalances certain game parts as for example naval attack, but would be interesting to try it out.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 11:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB No idea how much pilot skill affects hit ratio, I guess it would be a pilots ground attack rating that counted the mosy here. The CAG attacking Christmas Island were probably good pilots but ground attack is hardly their primary skill. 6 forts is more than what Iwo Jima had..Allies spent weeks using a much bigger air / sea bombardment force to attempt to suppress a much smaller target than Christmas Island. When soldiers watched major bombardments they were alwas convinced nothing could survive only to learn quite the opposite when they landed. What hasn't been mentioned here is thay disruption levels for xx tens of thousands of troops also is raised by 20-40%. The entire division attacked has 56% disruption now. I actually think rough terrain offers adequate protection in game, but I also think that 6 fort level should provide the same. Generalising is difficult though... Your last sentence is important. Forts 6 in the game are the same the world 'round, but what Iwo Jima had cannot be reproduced by Man in a harbor. Yet in the game a '6' is a '6'. Iwo had three days of naval bombardment, with rain, and rotating ships on the gun-line. It was not a devastating effort. Air attacks were over a longer period, but in short bursts, mostly by LBA from long range. During the landings most CAS was supplied by a small number of CVEs, one of which was lost, with, I recall, three fleet carriers (maybe four) providing CAP for the amphibs and the CVEs. There was no effort at Iwo in the same universe as over 400 strike aircraft hitting the invasion sites in one morning. Your point about pilot skill is well-taken. Maybe Andy could give you an idea of average ground skill. I'm in late April 1945 in my game, and I've done General Training for about a year for lots of my front-line pilots, except the B-29s. The carrier guys have long since reached diminishing returns on Naval. I have many CV pilots with high-40s on Ground. The size of the island doesn't factor into the algorithm to my knowledge when it's a port attack. Everything in the hex can be hit equally, and all AA in the hex can hit just as equally. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm not surprised you have those kinds of disruption from an attack this large. It's possible that there is an escalator for ports in the algorithm (no ports are 40 miles across, pretty much), but I don't know that. You're talking something like 400 tons of pretty well-aimed bombs in this attack, not area bombing. I think even inside a '6' bunker there's going to be some shock. It ought to wear off pretty rapidly, but I don't think this is modeled either. I think disruption decay is generalized. The kind of numbers you have here is what? about 8 fleet-CV airwings, en masse? I'm assuming the fighters were on escort; I don't want to go back and check. If any of them were on Port too that would add to the carnage. This attack consumed a significant number of available sorties for a very large TF. I don't see the results for late war as being that abnormal. You still have full fort levels, and disruption will recover if you have supplies and HQs. He, OTOH, can't repeat this attack many times without withdrawing to replenish. It's a trade off.

Treetop64 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 11:51:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PzB Just to top in my 2 c: Here's a result of Andy's last bombing run against Christmas Island - the worlds largest atoll with 6 forts! Morning Air attack on 54th Division, at 174,141 (Christmas Island) Weather in hex: Overcast Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 36 minutes Allied aircraft Avenger II x 26 Barracuda II x 18 Corsair II x 27 Hellcat I x 8 F4U-1A Corsair x 154 F6F-3 Hellcat x 309 SB2C-1C Helldiver x 162 TBF-1 Avenger x 7 TBM-1C Avenger x 213 Allied aircraft losses SB2C-1C Helldiver: 3 damaged SB2C-1C Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak TBM-1C Avenger: 3 damaged Japanese ground losses: 480 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 51 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Let's see... Consider that, in game: > One Avenger II, TBF-1, and TBM-1C each carries a payload of 1000 lbs (500 x 2) > One Barracuda II carries a payload of 1000 lbs (500 x 2) > One Corsair II and F4U-1A each carries 1000 lbs (1000 x 1) > One SB2C-1C Helldiver carries a payload of 1500 lbs (1 x 1000, 2 x 250) > The Hellcat Is/F6F-3 Hellcats carry just bullets - again, in game *** Note that the real-world maximum payloads for these aircraft were higher than these listed figures, particularly in the case of the Corsairs, which could carry a pair of thousand-pounders plus eight 5 inch rockets. In the raid, there were: > 246 Avengers (492 bombs dropped, 246,000 lbs of ordnance) > 18 Barracudas (36 bombs dropped, 18,000 lbs of ordnance) > 181 Corsairs (181 bombs dropped, 181,000 lbs of ordnance) > 162 Helldivers (486 bombs dropped, 243,000 lbs of ordnance) > 317 Hellcats (Lots-n-lots of .5s fired if they strafed at all) [:D] In this situation we have 607 aircraft dropping 1,195 bombs weighing 688,000 lbs - or 344 tons. Keep in mind also this isn't a carpet bombing mission; each of these planes is capable of picking their target when delivering their payloads, so each individual bomb released is much more likely to have an impact, so to speak. Also, doesn't FoW kick in when Combat Reports determine the butcher's bill? The actual casualties could be lower, or higher, than what's shown. I dunno. I'm inclined to think that, even when considering the 6 forts, PzB's boys got off relatively easy, considering the types and sheer number of planes bringing the smackdown.

Andy Mac -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/2/2011 11:54:50 PM)
170 Superforts on ground attack......thats just bonkers hans I understand but actually I would want to give the AI every advantage so if it wants to do it grand !!!

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375