RE: Float plane Success

RE: Float plane Success (Full Version)

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

Message

obvert -> RE: Float plane Success (10/26/2013 11:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: quote: 800kg bombs were pretty common. ok but still just double the number of torpedoes. Do you have a complement for one of early war carriers? _____________________________ According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. As I understand it the 800 kg bomb was a converted 16" shell; presumably main gun ammunition for the Nagato Class BBs. Since Nagato never fired in anger on anything until late 1944 there is little data to gauge the dud rate of that 16" ammunition unless one counts the one round that did blow up the HIJMS Mutsu. So I certainly hope that the Japanese have an improved version by the mid/late war that functions better than its antecedent. There was a production variant later, not the conversion that was used in the Pearl Attack. Here is a US NAVY document from Dec. 45 detailing Japanese bomb types that lists this bomb. It doesn't mention the production numbers or dud rate, but does state this had a larger explosive capacity than the earlier model. http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0465-0531%20Report%200-23.pdf [image]local://upfiles/37283/8193DA6079C44C57949F40627C322B99.jpg[/image]

mind_messing -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 3:08:31 PM)
As the opponent here, I'll pitch in - Looking at the first month of our game, the only thing that's really stood out has been the very high hit rates of the flying boats. I've been aggressive, pushed hard and as a result left a great deal of ships and task forces uncovered, allowing Allied strikes to sortie. From what I've seen as a result of this, the following stand out: - Very high hit rates from the flying boats. Whenever they fly, it's more than common for two, three or even four bomb hits on a single ship. - The same results have not applied to other Allied aircraft types. In one incidence, 12 A-24 Banshee bombers failed to cause any hits to a IJN invasion force, while four Catalina's managed three bomb hits (one on a heavy crusier). Compared to the flying boats, the craptastic Dutch and British bombers have not made even a mild impact. - The hit rate doesn't seem related to pilot skill, seeing as my opponent hasn't conducted any serious lownav training (or had time to, for that matter), and that the pilot skill limitation does not seem to apply to flying boats. All in all, the results seem a little out of whack. It's rare for flying boats not to land a bomb on target in 1941-early '42, but the opposite for every other Allied bomber.

HexHead -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 3:33:22 PM)
I've sent PBYs against shipping and, for some reason, IJ CAP has a difficult time with them. Often, six Zeroes jump a flight of Cats and all the Cats survive to make runs. Not all the time, but surprisingly (to me) often. Usually going in at 3000 feet or so. Maybe CAP is too high?

mind_messing -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 3:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead I've sent PBYs against shipping and, for some reason, IJ CAP has a difficult time with them. Often, six Zeroes jump a flight of Cats and all the Cats survive to make runs. Not all the time, but surprisingly (to me) often. Usually going in at 3000 feet or so. Maybe CAP is too high? The problem isn't engaging the Cats. While they are tough to take down, even a CAP of a couple of Nates is enough to throw their aim off and damage a few. My issue is flying boats with por lownav skills consistantly getting high rates - far higher than any other aircraft. It just seems out of whack. I've had turns where 6 Hudson bombers come in at a thousand feet and miss everything, then three Cats or Do24's attack at the same altitude and get three or four 500lb bomb hits.

HexHead -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 3:48:40 PM)
Even without considering historical modeling, etc., it seems a tad odd, yes.

Lokasenna -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 4:18:33 PM)
Bullwinkle's Seagulls messed up some of my lightly defended or undefended xAKs/xAKLs as well. And sunk a DMS or two, which is the only part of it that hurt. The hit rate did seem rather high - dropping 2x250 lb. bombs and getting on average a hit per plane seemed a bit much, but maybe he swapped pilots out. Either way, it didn't matter much. Just taught me to put some Nates on LRCAP. Pretty much anything beats off float planes and flying boats [;)].

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 7:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8\|]

Lokasenna -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 7:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: spence According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8\|] Just Kates? How about Cats and Avengers as well? Keep in mind that the game doesn't really model near misses - a lot of the "hits" in a game could be near misses, which in some cases can cause more damage than a direct hit. As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with.

HansBolter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 10:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing As the opponent here, I'll pitch in - Looking at the first month of our game, the only thing that's really stood out has been the very high hit rates of the flying boats. I've been aggressive, pushed hard and as a result left a great deal of ships and task forces uncovered, allowing Allied strikes to sortie. From what I've seen as a result of this, the following stand out: - Very high hit rates from the flying boats. Whenever they fly, it's more than common for two, three or even four bomb hits on a single ship. - The same results have not applied to other Allied aircraft types. In one incidence, 12 A-24 Banshee bombers failed to cause any hits to a IJN invasion force, while four Catalina's managed three bomb hits (one on a heavy crusier). Compared to the flying boats, the craptastic Dutch and British bombers have not made even a mild impact. - The hit rate doesn't seem related to pilot skill, seeing as my opponent hasn't conducted any serious lownav training (or had time to, for that matter), and that the pilot skill limitation does not seem to apply to flying boats. All in all, the results seem a little out of whack. It's rare for flying boats not to land a bomb on target in 1941-early '42, but the opposite for every other Allied bomber. Don't loose sight of the fact that those Banshee drivers have skills in the 30s while the Cat drivers have skills in the 50s.

coreyjones -> RE: Float plane Success (10/28/2013 11:41:46 PM)
I dont think it matters much anymore.. Floatplane attacks have dropped considerably in last 10 -15 turns or so... : P Here is another question derailing the thread a bit.... if the vindicators had a max range of 44 hexes(which is godly) why is their combat radius complete crap. I cant touch the Kb unless i get at least 5 hexes close to it.. while the kates op range is about 8. No the vindicator has a max combat range of 8 hexes but with a max range of 44 shouldnt they be able to get a better combat range?

mind_messing -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 12:02:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: srv24243 I dont think it matters much anymore.. Floatplane attacks have dropped considerably in last 10 -15 turns or so... : P Here is another question derailing the thread a bit.... if the vindicators had a max range of 44 hexes(which is godly) why is their combat radius complete crap. I cant touch the Kb unless i get at least 5 hexes close to it.. while the kates op range is about 8. No the vindicator has a max combat range of 8 hexes but with a max range of 44 shouldnt they be able to get a better combat range? My understanding is that max range means no payload, and added tanks for the transfer. The Vindicators can fly a good bit, but not when they've a 1000lber bomb stuck underneath.

Dili -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 12:29:01 AM)
srv24243, The only explanation is if the internal fuel is cut to carry a 1000lb bomb and/or if the drop tanks are big compared to the internal fuel. ------ Concerning the floatplanes maybe they have different code in game to hit rates and that puts them out of the normal. It certainly seems so.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 4:35:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: spence According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8\|] Just Kates? How about Cats and Avengers as well? Keep in mind that the game doesn't really model near misses - a lot of the "hits" in a game could be near misses, which in some cases can cause more damage than a direct hit. As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with. I've never seen Cats or Avengers score 70% hits while level bombing moving DD's from 9,000 feet. But I've seen it multiple times from Kates.[8\|][8\|]

Lokasenna -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 5:27:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: spence According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8\|] Just Kates? How about Cats and Avengers as well? Keep in mind that the game doesn't really model near misses - a lot of the "hits" in a game could be near misses, which in some cases can cause more damage than a direct hit. As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with. I've never seen Cats or Avengers score 70% hits while level bombing moving DD's from 9,000 feet. But I've seen it multiple times from Kates.[8\|][8\|] The mechanics are the same for both sides, and the loads are pretty much the same. Are you trying to say Kates have a coded advantage or something? Maybe the pilots were better. Maybe IJN DDs are harder to hit (I didn't look up maneuver ratings before posting). Maybe it was storming during the Allied attack. Maybe a lot of things. But the Kate carries 2x250kg bombs and the Avenger 2x500lb. Both are TBs. The differences there are miniscule (their speeds and ranges are different?). As far as the "does the bomb hit" code goes, they're the same. I've noticed that lately there's been an atmosphere of "JFBs have it so awesome guys, all these ahistorical production numbers and their planes do awesome things and mine miss and wahhh." Maybe it's because the Allied AARs are more active. Maybe it's because the Japanese players are cowed into keeping their own counsel. I think these complaints are driven by the game engine at its root - it's ahistorical. There have been ahistorical results in pretty much everyone's game. This isn't a simulation, it's a wargame. The Japanese player will lose the war, every time, unless the Allied player loses his patience (and even then...?). Pax had a great post on this in one player's AAR within the last 24 hours or so. So what if the Japanese player outproduces the Allied player's aircraft? There is a finite amount of HI available to the Japanese player. He'll run out all the same. The Allied player will always have the better tools and the forgiven mistakes due to the size and variety of his OOB. Complaining that the IJ player can put up a reasonable fight is like complaining that the Cubs were able to beat the Cardinals 7 times this year. But the Cardinals are a better team and they're in the World Series, you say. I agree. The Allies are more powerful no matter what the Japanese do. Yes, even in Scen 2. I mean come on guys. A stiffer IJ side is good for the game. Otherwise fewer people would play the IJ, and then none of the people complaining about ahistorical this, ahistorical that would have a PBEM game. And nobody wants that. The PBEM community here is maybe the greatest thing in the history of the internet. Except naked females on demand, of course.

JocMeister -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 7:27:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I've noticed that lately there's been an atmosphere of "JFBs have it so awesome guys, all these ahistorical production numbers and their planes do awesome things and mine miss and wahhh." Maybe it's because the Allied AARs are more active. Maybe it's because the Japanese players are cowed into keeping their own counsel. I think these complaints are driven by the game engine at its root - it's ahistorical. There have been ahistorical results in pretty much everyone's game. This isn't a simulation, it's a wargame. The Japanese player will lose the war, every time, unless the Allied player loses his patience (and even then...?). Pax had a great post on this in one player's AAR within the last 24 hours or so. So what if the Japanese player outproduces the Allied player's aircraft? There is a finite amount of HI available to the Japanese player. He'll run out all the same. The Allied player will always have the better tools and the forgiven mistakes due to the size and variety of his OOB. Complaining that the IJ player can put up a reasonable fight is like complaining that the Cubs were able to beat the Cardinals 7 times this year. But the Cardinals are a better team and they're in the World Series, you say. I agree. The Allies are more powerful no matter what the Japanese do. Yes, even in Scen 2. I mean come on guys. A stiffer IJ side is good for the game. Otherwise fewer people would play the IJ, and then none of the people complaining about ahistorical this, ahistorical that would have a PBEM game. And nobody wants that. The PBEM community here is maybe the greatest thing in the history of the internet. Except naked females on demand, of course. Speaking only for myself here but I do like to whine a lot! Not sure that makes it an allied thing though. [:D] On a more serious note I think a big portion is ignorance. From both sides. Allied players often have little knowledge of how the Japanese production works and its easy to just see the endless hordes of planes. The Jap players on the other hand might not completely understand just how fragile the Allied planes pools are and how frustrating that can be coupled with the "endless Japanese plane production". Speaking for myself here I will admit that hitting 45 and still fighting the plane pools more than my opponents air force was a big shock. And not a pleasant one. All that being said the "us vs them" mentality will always exist in games like this. Its the same over in the WITE forum and probably in any other similar forum on the internet. There will always be whine and complaining going on from both sides. Personally I think it adds flavour and competitiveness which is a good thing. How much fun is it to read an AAR/review/forum where no feelings are expressed? [:)]

obvert -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 8:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I've noticed that lately there's been an atmosphere of "JFBs have it so awesome guys, all these ahistorical production numbers and their planes do awesome things and mine miss and wahhh." Maybe it's because the Allied AARs are more active. Maybe it's because the Japanese players are cowed into keeping their own counsel. I think these complaints are driven by the game engine at its root - it's ahistorical. There have been ahistorical results in pretty much everyone's game. This isn't a simulation, it's a wargame. The Japanese player will lose the war, every time, unless the Allied player loses his patience (and even then...?). Pax had a great post on this in one player's AAR within the last 24 hours or so. So what if the Japanese player outproduces the Allied player's aircraft? There is a finite amount of HI available to the Japanese player. He'll run out all the same. The Allied player will always have the better tools and the forgiven mistakes due to the size and variety of his OOB. Complaining that the IJ player can put up a reasonable fight is like complaining that the Cubs were able to beat the Cardinals 7 times this year. But the Cardinals are a better team and they're in the World Series, you say. I agree. The Allies are more powerful no matter what the Japanese do. Yes, even in Scen 2. I mean come on guys. A stiffer IJ side is good for the game. Otherwise fewer people would play the IJ, and then none of the people complaining about ahistorical this, ahistorical that would have a PBEM game. And nobody wants that. The PBEM community here is maybe the greatest thing in the history of the internet. Except naked females on demand, of course. Speaking only for myself here but I do like to whine a lot! Not sure that makes it an allied thing though. [:D] On a more serious note I think a big portion is ignorance. From both sides. Allied players often have little knowledge of how the Japanese production works and its easy to just see the endless hordes of planes. The Jap players on the other hand might not completely understand just how fragile the Allied planes pools are and how frustrating that can be coupled with the "endless Japanese plane production". Speaking for myself here I will admit that hitting 45 and still fighting the plane pools more than my opponents air force was a big shock. And not a pleasant one. All that being said the "us vs them" mentality will always exist in games like this. Its the same over in the WITE forum and probably in any other similar forum on the internet. There will always be whine and complaining going on from both sides. Personally I think it adds flavour and competitiveness which is a good thing. How much fun is it to read an AAR/review/forum where no feelings are expressed? [:)] I think some of it can be a good thing, but then it comes to the point, as a player on the Japanese side, when you do better than historical. Suddenly you're vilified for it, or criticized for using what's available in game to fight to your utmost ability, and it's not so great. There is a kind of competition that can be honorable, respectful and see the bigger picture that this is a game for BOTH players where each take advantage of the non-historical abilities they find in the game to do better in some respect than the history we all know. After all we're trying to give a good game to our opponent, to win hopefully, but playing Japan it will rarely feel like winning even if the numbers say so. We all complain, but we don't have to complain about each other. There are other things in abundance to complain about. If all players decided to really learn this game by playing both sides it would solve the issue handily. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of many to play the Japanese side, and these are often the most vocal about how unhistorically it is played. Play it and find out how it works, what it feels like, and then complain away. This is one of the few games I've seen where players only want to be involved with one side or the other. Look at the players who have played both sides. Virtually none complain about Japanese production numbers or any of the other usual gripes about the dark side. They have a healthy respect for the difficulty of managing the Empire, of fighting off the Allied masses time and again and watching as everything they've done for literally years goes to hell in a hand basket, but very slowly, excruciatingly over another few years. If the game goes into the late years, the time of agony for a Japanese player is very long. Much longer than the brief period when the Allies are building strength. I love competition as much as anyone, but I value respect for other people more than winning.

JocMeister -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 9:28:55 AM)
Erik, If people criticize you for doing well they are just silly. That is not the kind of competitiveness I was asking for obviously. I don�t know what has been said in your AAR but I can assure you none one has criticized you for doing well in my AAR. A competitive atmosphere between the "AFB and JFB" doesn�t have to mean lack of respect. I think the reason for the "larger than normal" polarisation in AE is due to the extra management of the Japanese side. Some people love that kind of stuff while other detest it. And there is no denying playing the Japanese side is a complete beast compared to the allies. Then there is the personal preferences. I have tried playing the Japanese side against the AI many times but I just can�t do it. All that red color and odd CVs and names. I just don�t like it. [:)] I guess time constraint is another big issue. How many 100s of hours extra will the Japanese side require in terms of first learning the production system and then all the extra hours making sure it run. Just the thought of setting up all convoys and stuff makes my head spin and I don�t think I�m alone with that feeling. It simply requires an attention to detail many people like myself lack. But the is not a AE specific phenomenon. Look at the WITE forums for example. And don�t get me started on the old Battlefield ClanBase ladder.

obvert -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 10:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Erik, If people criticize you for doing well they are just silly. That is not the kind of competitiveness I was asking for obviously. I don�t know what has been said in your AAR but I can assure you none one has criticized you for doing well in my AAR. A competitive atmosphere between the "AFB and JFB" doesn�t have to mean lack of respect. I think the reason for the "larger than normal" polarisation in AE is due to the extra management of the Japanese side. Some people love that kind of stuff while other detest it. And there is no denying playing the Japanese side is a complete beast compared to the allies. Then there is the personal preferences. I have tried playing the Japanese side against the AI many times but I just can�t do it. All that red color and odd CVs and names. I just don�t like it. [:)] I guess time constraint is another big issue. How many 100s of hours extra will the Japanese side require in terms of first learning the production system and then all the extra hours making sure it run. Just the thought of setting up all convoys and stuff makes my head spin and I don�t think I�m alone with that feeling. It simply requires an attention to detail many people like myself lack. But the is not a AE specific phenomenon. Look at the WITE forums for example. And don�t get me started on the old Battlefield ClanBase ladder. It's not me I'm so worried about, but I have seen other Japanese side players torn apart for various reasons, usually in places where they can't respond. Good to know that's not happening somewhere I can't see, though. The interesting things that I feel the Allies are actually a harder task for time on turns. The economy is daunting to learn a first, but once you understand basic principles it's not too tough. The meticulous planning and aligning of units and HQs, multiple nations pilot and airframe management, ship and air group withdrawals and the amount of stuff to move make the Allies MUCH more time consuming for me when I play that side. I get the foreignness aspect, but some of your ship names are pretty 'foreign' for most of us too!! (Good thing I am mostly Viking myself, so I get it). [;)] It's just a really good idea to go through at least a year as Japan to see how it works. If not it'll always be a mystery and most likely you'll not really know all of the ways you can take advantage of the other side. I could write a treatise on where Japan is weak, but I'll leave that for another time. [:)] It's just ironic to know that and listen to some of the complaints I hear about what the Japanese can do when you're sitting there seeing all of the ways the Allies can take advantage of your best options. It also may let Allied players see better where the holes are in their own side at various points.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 12:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: spence According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8\|] Just Kates? How about Cats and Avengers as well? Keep in mind that the game doesn't really model near misses - a lot of the "hits" in a game could be near misses, which in some cases can cause more damage than a direct hit. As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with. I've never seen Cats or Avengers score 70% hits while level bombing moving DD's from 9,000 feet. But I've seen it multiple times from Kates.[8\|][8\|] The mechanics are the same for both sides, and the loads are pretty much the same. Are you trying to say Kates have a coded advantage or something? Maybe the pilots were better. Maybe IJN DDs are harder to hit (I didn't look up maneuver ratings before posting). Maybe it was storming during the Allied attack. Maybe a lot of things. But the Kate carries 2x250kg bombs and the Avenger 2x500lb. Both are TBs. The differences there are miniscule (their speeds and ranges are different?). As far as the "does the bomb hit" code goes, they're the same. What I noticed was that the "bonus" given to Japanese Torpedo bombers (Kates, Nells, and Bettys) to reflect their high success rate at the start of the war somehow effects ALL of their "low level attacks" (below 10,000 feet). More the "Law of Unintended Consequences"..., but it does make very good torpedo bombers into level bombers with laser-guided bombs. And that the most certainly were not! And I'm a long way from the first person to point this out.

Lokasenna -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 3:08:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: spence According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8\|] Just Kates? How about Cats and Avengers as well? Keep in mind that the game doesn't really model near misses - a lot of the "hits" in a game could be near misses, which in some cases can cause more damage than a direct hit. As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with. I've never seen Cats or Avengers score 70% hits while level bombing moving DD's from 9,000 feet. But I've seen it multiple times from Kates.[8\|][8\|] The mechanics are the same for both sides, and the loads are pretty much the same. Are you trying to say Kates have a coded advantage or something? Maybe the pilots were better. Maybe IJN DDs are harder to hit (I didn't look up maneuver ratings before posting). Maybe it was storming during the Allied attack. Maybe a lot of things. But the Kate carries 2x250kg bombs and the Avenger 2x500lb. Both are TBs. The differences there are miniscule (their speeds and ranges are different?). As far as the "does the bomb hit" code goes, they're the same. What I noticed was that the "bonus" given to Japanese Torpedo bombers (Kates, Nells, and Bettys) to reflect their high success rate at the start of the war somehow effects ALL of their "low level attacks" (below 10,000 feet). More the "Law of Unintended Consequences"..., but it does make very good torpedo bombers into level bombers with laser-guided bombs. And that the most certainly were not! And I'm a long way from the first person to point this out. What bonus? Am I missing something?

Rising-Sun -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 3:53:06 PM)
Many things can happen, infact its based on pilot's experience and the hardware he driven in. As long he doesnt get jumped by fighters, things should be fair. Also if you are playing against the AIs, the AIs will cheat in some ways. I have seen B-17 bombers switching bases while attacking, this happen when i upgrade, move or stand down my fighter groups. And not easy to find a good dependably players to play with.

obvert -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 5:32:07 PM)
quote: What I noticed was that the "bonus" given to Japanese Torpedo bombers (Kates, Nells, and Bettys) to reflect their high success rate at the start of the war somehow effects ALL of their "low level attacks" (below 10,000 feet). More the "Law of Unintended Consequences"..., but it does make very good torpedo bombers into level bombers with laser-guided bombs. And that the most certainly were not! And I'm a long way from the first person to point this out. If there is a 'bonus' you've noticed maybe this should go to the tech forum? Maybe give info from tests you've performed? This is the first I've heard of it or noticed through play, and I've played both sides a bit.

Lokasenna -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 8:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: What I noticed was that the "bonus" given to Japanese Torpedo bombers (Kates, Nells, and Bettys) to reflect their high success rate at the start of the war somehow effects ALL of their "low level attacks" (below 10,000 feet). More the "Law of Unintended Consequences"..., but it does make very good torpedo bombers into level bombers with laser-guided bombs. And that the most certainly were not! And I'm a long way from the first person to point this out. If there is a 'bonus' you've noticed maybe this should go to the tech forum? Maybe give info from tests you've performed? This is the first I've heard of it or noticed through play, and I've played both sides a bit. Maybe it's the quality of the pilots? IJN Kate (and Netty) pilots are on the elite end of the spectrum, many with greater than 80 XP and greater than 80 skill in each of NavB, Torp, and GrndB.

spence -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 11:34:13 PM)
quote: As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with. To answer this question the answer is yes. Every device has an attribute of "DUD RATE". Apparently every device except torpedoes has a rate of zero. I have no data on the dud rate of various weapons other than torpedoes although I have read of US ammunition in the PI at the beginning of the war being notably unreliable. Also I recall reading about there being a significant proportion of some BB ammunition being significantly unreliable too but I can't say where. Zimm (who apparently was an operational analyst in the USN) did do a study of the effects of the different IJN weapons used at Pearl Harbor. The converted 16" shell/800kg bomb seems to have had a very significant failure rate amongst the bombs that actually hit. As mentioned before that failure rate was completely obscured by the spectacular success that the bomb scored on the USS Arizona. LCDR Fuchida, who, it must be mentioned, had a personal stake in the performance of the level bombers, reported that both USS Maryland and USS Tennessee were crippled by 800 kg bomb hits when in fact the damage was minor. In both cases bomb hits on main gun turrets destroyed the bomb but resulted in only minor damage to one of the guns in the turret. Zimm points out that the rear part of the shell casing was "shaved" during the conversion (to bomb) process which resulted in a weakened rear portion of the bomb case that broke off if subjected to some sort of a transverse stress like striking angled armor. Keep in mind that the fuze for armor piercing bombs is located in the rear of the bomb thus a failure of the rear portion of the bomb resulted in detaching the fuze from the explosive.

obvert -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 11:45:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with. To answer this question the answer is yes. Every device has an attribute of "DUD RATE". Apparently every device except torpedoes has a rate of zero. I have no data on the dud rate of various weapons other than torpedoes although I have read of US ammunition in the PI at the beginning of the war being notably unreliable. Also I recall reading about there being a significant proportion of some BB ammunition being significantly unreliable too but I can't say where. Zimm (who apparently was an operational analyst in the USN) did do a study of the effects of the different IJN weapons used at Pearl Harbor. The converted 16" shell/800kg bomb seems to have had a very significant failure rate amongst the bombs that actually hit. As mentioned before that failure rate was completely obscured by the spectacular success that the bomb scored on the USS Arizona. LCDR Fuchida, who, it must be mentioned, had a personal stake in the performance of the level bombers, reported that both USS Maryland and USS Tennessee were crippled by 800 kg bomb hits when in fact the damage was minor. In both cases bomb hits on main gun turrets destroyed the bomb but resulted in only minor damage to one of the guns in the turret. Zimm points out that the rear part of the shell casing was "shaved" during the conversion (to bomb) process which resulted in a weakened rear portion of the bomb case that broke off if subjected to some sort of a transverse stress like striking angled armor. Keep in mind that the fuze for armor piercing bombs is located in the rear of the bomb thus a failure of the rear portion of the bomb resulted in detaching the fuze from the explosive. The production variant (shown above) was supposed to have fixed this by not being a converted device but one designed from scratch. This one was produced in a limited capacity throughout the war as opposed to these used at PH. I haven't found any data on how many were made yet, but looking.

spence -> RE: Float plane Success (10/29/2013 11:59:54 PM)
I can't say I'm any expert but the diagram/description posted above says that like the earlier bomb the Type 2 800 kg bomb was a converted AP shell. Maybe it turned out different after testing?

SuluSea -> RE: Float plane Success (10/30/2013 12:38:33 AM)
Japanese starting IJN pilots are elite pilots. Anyone who has played this game for more than a few days understand the better the pilots are trained the better they perform. I've run close to a 100 possibly more tests attacking Pearl, I've had outcomes that sink zero BB's and results that sunk more than historic.

Kereguelen -> RE: Float plane Success (10/30/2013 12:01:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert If there is a 'bonus' you've noticed maybe this should go to the tech forum? Maybe give info from tests you've performed? This is the first I've heard of it or noticed through play, and I've played both sides a bit. There is no 'bonus'.

PaxMondo -> RE: Float plane Success (10/30/2013 12:55:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: obvert If there is a 'bonus' you've noticed maybe this should go to the tech forum? Maybe give info from tests you've performed? This is the first I've heard of it or noticed through play, and I've played both sides a bit. There is no 'bonus'. Thanks for dispelling yet another "myth". [&o][&o][&o]

HansBolter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/30/2013 1:11:42 PM)
Guys we all know the 'bonus" is the difference in training. Did you all really feel it necessary to pile on with the extremist expressions of disdain and jubilation in proving yet another newbie wrong in his impressions? This is the kind of behavior that makes it hard to accept your arguments that the Japanese side truly needs all of the beefing up it was given to make the side viable to play and appealing to players. Gloating isn't a becoming character trait for anyone. I'm sufficiently disgusted now so you needn't worry about anymore posts from me here today.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.436523