4Es (are borked?) (Full Version)

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



Message

inqistor -> 4Es (are borked?) (11/12/2011 10:21:01 AM)

Is this new trend to add borked everywhere? New black?

Several levels experiment:
When I was writing about one device representing actually several devices, it was based on theory, that one bomb can not hit more than one land device (squad/tank/gun), but base damage are actully based on effect of weapon. The overall goal is actually to make Attack/1E bombers best in ground support role, and bigger bombers better for strategic bombing. Minimum number for extra devices would be 2, so if 2E bombers use "sticks" (TM by NEMO) of TWO, 4Es should be even worse in ground support, so they would use at least 3.

This solution have several more capabilities:
For example, by defining "stick" (TM by NEMO) of 4 500lb bombs, as one device with the same accuracy (OK, there was test here few months ago, which concluded that for accuracy 3, 25, and 1000 there is not much difference), but 4 times effect/Soft Attack, and weight, we get slot for 2000lb. It can have alternative device, which will be used during Naval Attacks, as 2000lb SAP bomb, or it can have another "stick" (TM by NEMO) of 4 500lb SAP bombs, with greater accuracy (if it works in any way), but effect similar to ONE 500lb bomb (to simulate chance of hit ship with only ONE bomb per every cluster).


But my actual experiment is for using "Fake" drop tanks (OK, quite lots of 4Es actually used them in internal bomb-bays). Game engine works in the way, that external Drop Tanks get place of external ordnance, when turned on. That do not seem to work for internal definition. So, if we want to simulate short range B-29 capability of actually delivering whole 20000lb:
Set standard 10000lb bombs in internal bomb bays,
set extra 10000lb bomb in external bomb bays,
add drop tanks into plane, in external position in number equal to external bombs, now:

Set DT ranges as that which are currently used by plane. Set non-DT ranges at defined "short range" (I have chosen half of normal range, but only because I do not want to search actual data), for normal range, and old normal range, for extended range.
By defining extended range without DT as the same as normal range with DT player would have to choose if he wants to save supply, at the cost of greater operational loses, and danger of enemy bombing his airfields, or spent extra supply, for unit not to fly at extended range.
This allows to define 4 different bombloads for one plane (but part of it must be common for all missions).

Another interesting solution is to have standard 10-12 500lb bombs, and additional heavier bombs for short range mission (without "drop" tanks). That way with Drop Tanks bomber works identical as currently (but uses twice the supply). Without Drop Tanks it have shorter range, but carries aditional heavier bombs.

Some examples:

[image]local://upfiles/35065/CCE7556EDCD74A1986989A43D6D357FD.jpg[/image]



UniformYankee -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/12/2011 3:36:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Is this new trend to add borked everywhere? New black?


I think "borked" is added to ensure DEVs do not read the post!
[:)]



inqistor -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/19/2011 11:11:20 AM)

Some advanced examples:

Additional larger bombs for short-range mission.

[image]local://upfiles/35065/1F7785EC43734F6CA7213AC7FE6CCC64.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/19/2011 11:15:09 AM)

PB4Y, with better anti-ship armament.

It seems ordance is exchanged on per-weight basis. So if standard "stick" (TM by NEMO) weights 2000, and "alternative device" is normal 500lb bomb, it will be "exchanged" for 4 bombs, not one. I am wondering if it is possible to simulate it the other way (TWO 500lb GP bombs, will be exchanged for ONE 1000lb SAP).

[image]local://upfiles/35065/C983C7F45320466DA94ADB95835C6A3E.jpg[/image]



PaxMondo -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/19/2011 2:26:58 PM)

I have NOT been able to make this happen.  Watching this with great interest to see if anyone chimes in with a method.  My conclusion is that the torp exchange is hard coded.  I have been able to get the device swap to work with great efficiency (various GP/AP exchanges for instance), but the number is fixed.



JWE -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/19/2011 7:10:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
I have NOT been able to make this happen.  Watching this with great interest to see if anyone chimes in with a method.  My conclusion is that the torp exchange is hard coded.  I have been able to get the device swap to work with great efficiency (various GP/AP exchanges for instance), but the number is fixed.

The inquisitor person is totally clueless. The rules for bomb swapping are very straight forward, and can be modified very easily. One must know how the game operates and what the editor fields mean (that leaves the inquisitor person out), but those things are well understood and well within the competence of a knowledgeable player. If you want the rules, just send a pm.
[ed] there will be some things that are not for general attribution or available for general discussion.



Treetop64 -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/23/2011 5:59:15 AM)

Within the context of just playing the game, my 4Es seem to be working just fine.



oldman45 -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (11/23/2011 5:23:03 PM)

I tend to get exactly the results I am expecting with my 4E.



inqistor -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (1/21/2012 9:18:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Within the context of just playing the game, my 4Es seem to be working just fine.

The actual problem is rather they are too effective in some cases. It seems currently, the only difference between bombers is airfield size, which can be some issue in early war, but there are hardly any 4Es then to use.

The other thing, I have accidently discovered during testing of large naval guns as DP. Completely green B-29 unit (pilots with 35 exp, and with LowN at teens), in skip-bombing attacks of less than 10 planes, against Yamato, tends to get all planes damaged, but average number of hits seems to be 3. I see occasional hit by low-experienced DBs, and to get hit with any small non-experienced bomber is miracle, but sheer number of bombs for 4Es seems to tip the algorithm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I have NOT been able to make this happen. Watching this with great interest to see if anyone chimes in with a method. My conclusion is that the torp exchange is hard coded. I have been able to get the device swap to work with great efficiency (various GP/AP exchanges for instance), but the number is fixed.

I experimented while with torpedoes and indeed it seems they are fixed to model type. Although thinking of it - maybe it is possible to change types of devices depending of mission? Like maybe getting rid of MGs, to simulate Doolittle raid?

I was actually talking about bombs only - an interesting discovery, take a look at picture. When plane was set with standard load of 1000lb bombs (actually good to know, that anti-ship load can be set as standard), and those bombs had set AltDevice as 100lb GP bombs, after changing the mission, bombs were exchanged based on weight (so 10 100lb bombs for every 1000lb bomb).

It seems it is done by device basis, not plane load, as when I set AltDevice as 250 kg bombs (weight 551), they were exchanged 1:1.

And it seems it scales only downward, as setting AltDevice as 800kg bombs (weights around 1600) does not changed 1000lb during changing mission.

[image]local://upfiles/35065/1E20EE6C21984999B75629A2E609FA04.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/11/2012 5:13:41 PM)

It seems I was not entirely correct.

I was trying to modify VAL bombload, so Pearl Harbor airfield attack will destroy more planes (closer to history). I am not sure VAL could carry 2 bombs, under fuselage, so wanted it to use 3x60kg for airfield attack, and it seems exchange is made only in pairs. 250 kg bomb, with load cost 551 is easily exchanged for 4x60 kg bombs, at 132 load cost, but when I have changed load to 142, only 2x60 kg bombs were used, not 3x60 kg.

Also, I realized, that VALs use GP bombs during port attack, which makes huge difference, as SAP, and GP penetration for 250 kg is exactly on both sides of US CA deck armor value.


Anyway, good information is, that chain-alternatives works. I have defined 250 kg SAP, as standard bombload, 250 kg GP bomb, as port/ground attack, and 60 kg GP, as airfield attack, and all types were used during turn resolution, in their roles.

[image]local://upfiles/35065/9938AE471DDA4E4CAEC5FC0CEED10362.jpg[/image]



Treetop64 -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/11/2012 6:23:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

The other thing, I have accidently discovered during testing of large naval guns as DP. Completely green B-29 unit (pilots with 35 exp, and with LowN at teens), in skip-bombing attacks of less than 10 planes, against Yamato, tends to get all planes damaged, but average number of hits seems to be 3. I see occasional hit by low-experienced DBs, and to get hit with any small non-experienced bomber is miracle, but sheer number of bombs for 4Es seems to tip the algorithm.


Really...?

Of course, the practice of using B-29s for anti-shipping, skip bombing runs renders any serious discussions about the results moot.



Terminus -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/11/2012 10:30:48 PM)

Well, this sort of thing happens when the "tester" has an axe to grind and is lying to make sure he gets to grind it.



inqistor -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/19/2012 8:08:06 AM)

Some statistics:
It seems randomization is too large to get definitive answer for some problems. Initial testing gave slightly bigger number of destroyed planes (by around 3%), but the more tests I make, the weirder results. Currently it seems, that change for 60kg bombs, and using Scenario setup, number of destroyed planes is actually LOWER by 6%.

Anyway, two things are clear:
Number of DAMAGED planes is higher. Initially by around 12%, but after many tests it is now around 9%.
AIRFIELD is closed (for bombers, it is lvl 10, so needs 100% damage to be closed for CAP) every time. With standard bombload it had around 70% damage (frequently less, so it was still open). Now it is over 80% every time.

Changing strike composition to ALL TB at port, and ALL DB at airfield (no change for fighters) seems to lower number of destroyed planes by around 3%, but number of damaged goes up by almost 30%


Actually, I digged deeper, and report from Pearl Harbor attack shows, that VALs carried 250kg GP bombs during both waves, but KATEs had 1x250kg bomb AND 6x60kg bombs, during Second Wave. No way of changing KATE bombload, but it is possible to give VAL 6x60kg bombs, and number of bombs dropped will remain the same (with historical setting). I have made ONE test so far, and still no more Destroyed planes, but number of damaged risen beyond 40%.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/19/2012 6:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I tend to get exactly the results I am expecting with my 4E.


I've been reading this thread with a mixture of humor and head-shaking. I too get exactly what I expect--virtually no hits on maneuvering ships by 4Es. In fact, were I to play a PBEM game, I would eagerly accept a HR which encouraged 4Es as anti-shipping devices. That way they aren't bombing airfields where they can smear a base Real Good.

That this "no 4E below 10,000 ft" HR has survived this long after WITP's retirement is testament to the stubborness in the face of evidence exhibited by some AE players.



el cid again -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/20/2012 11:16:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Some statistics:
It seems randomization is too large to get definitive answer for some problems. Initial testing gave slightly bigger number of destroyed planes (by around 3%), but the more tests I make, the weirder results. Currently it seems, that change for 60kg bombs, and using Scenario setup, number of destroyed planes is actually LOWER by 6%.

Anyway, two things are clear:
Number of DAMAGED planes is higher. Initially by around 12%, but after many tests it is now around 9%.
AIRFIELD is closed (for bombers, it is lvl 10, so needs 100% damage to be closed for CAP) every time. With standard bombload it had around 70% damage (frequently less, so it was still open). Now it is over 80% every time.

Changing strike composition to ALL TB at port, and ALL DB at airfield (no change for fighters) seems to lower number of destroyed planes by around 3%, but number of damaged goes up by almost 30%


Actually, I digged deeper, and report from Pearl Harbor attack shows, that VALs carried 250kg GP bombs during both waves, but KATEs had 1x250kg bomb AND 6x60kg bombs, during Second Wave. No way of changing KATE bombload, but it is possible to give VAL 6x60kg bombs, and number of bombs dropped will remain the same (with historical setting). I have made ONE test so far, and still no more Destroyed planes, but number of damaged risen beyond 40%.



I do not believe a Val can carry 6 x 60 kg bombs. It has only three hard points - one for a 250 kg or less on the centerline - and one for a 60 kg on each wing. It may have been possible to carry 2 x 60 kg on the centerline - in which case it might get up to 4 bombs.

I try to use typical loads - which means many 60 kg bombs for IJN bombers and 50 kg bombs for many IJA bombers. I generally agree with your results. The historical bomb loads do seem to help bombers be more effective vs land units, bases, ships in port and unarmored ships at sea. Mostly in terms of more hits but also slightly in terms of less damage to the bombers: more hits on AAA assets perhaps?



el cid again -> RE: 4Es (are borked?) (5/20/2012 11:28:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I tend to get exactly the results I am expecting with my 4E.


I've been reading this thread with a mixture of humor and head-shaking. I too get exactly what I expect--virtually no hits on maneuvering ships by 4Es. In fact, were I to play a PBEM game, I would eagerly accept a HR which encouraged 4Es as anti-shipping devices. That way they aren't bombing airfields where they can smear a base Real Good.

That this "no 4E below 10,000 ft" HR has survived this long after WITP's retirement is testament to the stubborness in the face of evidence exhibited by some AE players.



It was certainly USAAF doctrine in 1941 to use B-17s against ships. Colin Kelly got a medal for a mission that was tasked to do just that - and wrongly credited with sinking Haruna - although the medal was for how he saved his crew when the plane was hurt on returning to its base.

It also appears that the 4 engine bombers do work in AE - whatever players may be posting here. IF you fly em very high - hits are very rare. If you fly em at medium altitude, hits are more common. IF you use historical loads - 12 x 250 pound bombs for a B-17 C or D; 10 x 500 pound bombs for a B-17 E or an LB-30; 12 x 500 pound bombs for a B-17 F or G or for a B-24D; etc - you will score hits and they will be unpleasant for the ships down below, armored or not.

Flying at very low altitude is not a good idea. It causes exessive fatigue (as it should) and it risks damage and loss to light AAA - a much bigger problem in my mods than most because I put in most of the AAA MG actually present in land units. It is at medium altitudes the most hits will be scored without excessive fatigue or AA losses - at least early in the war. Eventually Allied medium AAA is so strong it will cause excessive losses for Japanese bombers at medium altitudes. The other problem with medium altitude is that the bombers are rather vulnerable to CAP. Paridoxically - but probably correctly - at very low altitudes bomers are almost immune to being intercepted. Since code allegedly gives a skip bombing bonus for planes at very low altitude - this should not be used by really big bombers - or until someone thought of the idea (in 1943). But the penalties are so severe - bomber fatigue will take the planes down and keep em down for a long time - and light AAA casualties will be very high - that I doubt many planers will consider it.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.574219