Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)...

Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Apollo11 -> Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 1:55:07 PM)
Hi all, According to WitP manual torpedo bombers would go to "Naval Attack" mission armed with torpedoes if range is within "Normal" and they would use bombs if range is from "Normal" till "Extended". But some users on this board reported that this is not the case in all circumstances and that altitude also plays _IMPORTANT_ role here (i.e. even if range is within "Normal" the torpedo bombers would not carry torpedoes if altitude is set "too high")... So... how high is "too high"? Any experiences with this gentleman? Matrix/2by3 any inside info perhaps? Thanks in advance! Leo "Apollo11"

Captain Cruft -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 2:08:40 PM)
I agree this needs clarification. Maybe it's tied in with the random port attack bombs/torpedoes thing? Why my Nells chose to use 800kg AP bombs against the PT boats in Manila harbour I don't know. Funny though [:D]

Apollo11 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 3:42:40 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft I agree this needs clarification. Maybe it's tied in with the random port attack bombs/torpedoes thing? Why my Nells chose to use 800kg AP bombs against the PT boats in Manila harbour I don't know. Funny though [:D] Interesting idea that those two are connected... only Matrix/2By3 can tell for sure... Leo "Apollo11"

Belisarius -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 4:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft I agree this needs clarification. Maybe it's tied in with the random port attack bombs/torpedoes thing? Why my Nells chose to use 800kg AP bombs against the PT boats in Manila harbour I don't know. Funny though [:D] Where did the splinters land? Singapore? [:D]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 4:39:55 PM)
quote: So... how high is "too high"? Nothing in the code is exact ... there is always some variance involved with a percentage chance change. Mike mentioned that the torp/bomb is a roll on port attack. The more different groups, the more rolls and the better the chances that you get some torp rolls. Picture 6 groups ... flip a coin 6 times. heads = bombs, tails = torps. That is PH. There are times where you will get six heads and see no torps. The unknown modifier seems to relate to altitude that aircraft 9000+ tend to be more likely to roll heads instead of tails. For all I know, it could be just bad coin tosses ... 2by3 neither confirmed or denied [:D] Feel free to mock up a test and run it a hundred times to try and pull some conclusive pattern out of it.

Damien Thorn -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 5:03:07 PM)
I think the first guy who was posting about getting bomb attacks at normal range was flying out of an airfield that was less that size four. In that case, the bombers use their extended range load. I doubt altitude plays a role in it.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 5:25:11 PM)
quote: I think the first guy who was posting about getting bomb attacks at normal range was flying out of an airfield that was less that size four. In that case, the bombers use their extended range load. I doubt altitude plays a role in it. Separate discussion Damien ... this is about why Torpedo bombers happen to elect to use bombs instead of torpedoes when in range (ie: a CV group attacking PH) Leo's actually titled this message chain wrong ... it is about torp vs bomb when in range not extended vs normal range. We all know that extended range always equals no torps. Undersized airfields shift any aircraft to extended range.

Damien Thorn -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 5:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: I think the first guy who was posting about getting bomb attacks at normal range was flying out of an airfield that was less that size four. In that case, the bombers use their extended range load. I doubt altitude plays a role in it. Separate discussion Damien ... this is about why Torpedo bombers happen to elect to use bombs instead of torpedoes when in range (ie: a CV group attacking PH) Leo's actually titled this message chain wrong ... it is about torp vs bomb when in range not extended vs normal range. We all know that extended range always equals no torps. Undersized airfields shift any aircraft to extended range. That only happens in port attacks, right? Naval targets should be torpedoes 100% of the time in normal range. In port it is 50/50 I believe. If I'm wrong on any of that, please let me know.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 5:33:53 PM)
quote: That only happens in port attacks, right? Naval targets should be torpedoes 100% of the time in normal range. In port it is 50/50 I believe. If I'm wrong on any of that, please let me know. Nope, you are right, but it does not seem to be 100% 50/50 ... it seems that the higher you go, the more the odds lean towards the bombs being picked.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 5:47:41 PM)
The original question in this thread related to Naval Attack not Port Attack. I have seen it myself where Nells would attack the same TF at the same range sometimes with bombs and sometimes with torps. If it's just a die roll then that's fine, we are just asking for clarification :-)

Damien Thorn -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 5:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft The original question in this thread related to Naval Attack not Port Attack. I have seen it myself where Nells would attack the same TF at the same range sometimes with bombs and sometimes with torps. Well, that would be wrong. It should always be torpedoes if it is naval attack.

Apollo11 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 7:32:53 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn That only happens in port attacks, right? Naval targets should be torpedoes 100% of the time in normal range. In port it is 50/50 I believe. If I'm wrong on any of that, please let me know. No... I was asking about "Naval Attack" when, apparently sometimes, bombs are used instead torpedoes even when range is less than "Normal" for that aircrfat type... Leo "Apollo11"

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 7:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: So... how high is "too high"? Nothing in the code is exact ... there is always some variance involved with a percentage chance change. Mike mentioned that the torp/bomb is a roll on port attack. The more different groups, the more rolls and the better the chances that you get some torp rolls. Picture 6 groups ... flip a coin 6 times. heads = bombs, tails = torps. That is PH. There are times where you will get six heads and see no torps. The unknown modifier seems to relate to altitude that aircraft 9000+ tend to be more likely to roll heads instead of tails. For all I know, it could be just bad coin tosses ... 2by3 neither confirmed or denied [:D] Feel free to mock up a test and run it a hundred times to try and pull some conclusive pattern out of it. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but you reminded me of a condition I've noted, which I think has always existed. Is it true that when bombers hit airfields that they do not show as a battle commenced? I know I've seen fighters strafe though. The reason I ask that is because I don't think I've ever seen all six groups of the Kates attack from TF1 on scen15 with surprise (Isn't the PH flak ridiculously heavy for a 'surprised' nation?). It looks as though not only the last two groups of Kates, but Vals as well, just show up as target practice for the flak and don't bomb anything. I suspect it's because they're allegedly attacking the airfields, because I know the scen has the Kate orders to attack the airfields. All they do, at least the Kates for sure, show their group, get shot at and don't ever drop anything. This is a bit peculiar because I've seen plenty of other airfield bomber raids elsewhere and at least they go through the routine. Are we to believe that at least the last two groups of Kates are turning back because the flak is so heavy? And if that's the reason, then how could the US be called surprised? Is there too much flak there, or too much readiness in PH? Comments?

2ndACR -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 8:51:26 PM)
Change out the Kates on airfield attack and put them on Port attack. Replace them with 2 Val sqdrns. I seem to get at least 2 Kates groups dropping torps everytime with that option. But I have decided Manila is a much better target than PH on turn 1. I can torpedo the BB's later. I want to kill as many subs as possible from the get go. The allied player can have his BB's.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 9:02:48 PM)
quote: The reason I ask that is because I don't think I've ever seen all six groups of the Kates attack from TF1 on scen15 with surprise (Isn't the PH flak ridiculously heavy for a 'surprised' nation?). It looks as though not only the last two groups of Kates, but Vals as well, just show up as target practice for the flak and don't bomb anything. I suspect it's because they're allegedly attacking the airfields, because I know the scen has the Kate orders to attack the airfields. All they do, at least the Kates for sure, show their group, get shot at and don't ever drop anything. This is a bit peculiar because I've seen plenty of other airfield bomber raids elsewhere and at least they go through the routine. Are we to believe that at least the last two groups of Kates are turning back because the flak is so heavy? And if that's the reason, then how could the US be called surprised? Is there too much flak there, or too much readiness in PH? Comments? The default has some of the Kates attacking PH's runways. I crank all my Kates down to 5K and set them all on Port attack. I also shift some Vals to port attack as well. They don't get any penetrating hits, but they do get hits which add fires, which aids in making sure the BB's are well and truely damaged even if they don't sink. I use the remaining Vals and Zero's to beat on the airfield with 1 group pure CAP and 1 group pure Escort.

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 9:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Change out the Kates on airfield attack and put them on Port attack. Replace them with 2 Val sqdrns. I seem to get at least 2 Kates groups dropping torps everytime with that option. But I have decided Manila is a much better target than PH on turn 1. I can torpedo the BB's later. I want to kill as many subs as possible from the get go. The allied player can have his BB's. This is why people have made a house rule against such things [:'(]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 9:06:01 PM)
quote: This is why people have made a house rule against such things House rule against PH's attack? never heard of that one. Every set of rules I have ever seen leaves PH free for whatever you want.

2ndACR -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 9:09:26 PM)
Naw, he is talking about a house rule against attacking Manila instead of PH. They do not care about the BB's. But they want their lovely subs.

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/4/2004 10:26:49 PM)
At least my view is confirmed through this, however, can somebody describe why the PH Kates and Vals aren't showing up as bombing "anything" from those last combined 4 groups? IOW, I don't get the 6 groups of each that should be bombing 'something', but only four apiece. Are these last 4 groups really getting subjected to flak without bombing the airfields as it appears?

Rebel Yell -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 1:20:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 (Isn't the PH flak ridiculously heavy for a 'surprised' nation?). It looks as though not only the last two groups of Kates, but Vals as well, just show up as target practice for the flak and don't bomb anything. I suspect it's because they're allegedly attacking the airfields, because I know the scen has the Kate orders to attack the airfields. All they do, at least the Kates for sure, show their group, get shot at and don't ever drop anything. This is a bit peculiar because I've seen plenty of other airfield bomber raids elsewhere and at least they go through the routine. Are we to believe that at least the last two groups of Kates are turning back because the flak is so heavy? And if that's the reason, then how could the US be called surprised? Is there too much flak there, or too much readiness in PH? Comments? Read the Antiaircraft portion down the page here

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 5:36:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 (Isn't the PH flak ridiculously heavy for a 'surprised' nation?). It looks as though not only the last two groups of Kates, but Vals as well, just show up as target practice for the flak and don't bomb anything. I suspect it's because they're allegedly attacking the airfields, because I know the scen has the Kate orders to attack the airfields. All they do, at least the Kates for sure, show their group, get shot at and don't ever drop anything. This is a bit peculiar because I've seen plenty of other airfield bomber raids elsewhere and at least they go through the routine. Are we to believe that at least the last two groups of Kates are turning back because the flak is so heavy? And if that's the reason, then how could the US be called surprised? Is there too much flak there, or too much readiness in PH? Comments? Read the Antiaircraft portion down the page here Nice, only I don't see any loss figures. I'm under the impression that we're seeing double the loss rate of what really occured. Sure, there was enough stuff there to knock out every plane, but I'm asking if the AA isn't too effective, which would suggest that some rating isn't low enough as far as that defense went. Normally I'm not into making one battle super-accurate, but when you have a special rule that provides for the surprise attack, then maybe that rule didn't penalize enough, but then again it may not even affect AA fire. I seem to recall the manual said something about there were some PH aircraft penalties anyway.

DBS -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 9:59:02 AM)
Agree on the over-effectiveness of the flak, notwithstanding the selection of the "surprise" option. I am sure that the US fired off plenty of shots on the day. But the crews were caught by surprise, had no battle experience, possibly not very good training (I mean realistic practice, rather than basic gun drills at which I am sure they were as good as anyone), no coordination, and, by the time they started firing, already badly hurt. Will have to check, but do the attackers have to fly through flak three times as per normal? After all, the first wave at least were able to make their attack runs effectively without flak, since by definition it was the first bombs falling that triggered the defences. I would have thought that the first wave should to all intents and purposes only be fired on AFTER attacking. This may also have an impact on their own accuracy/effectiveness - I presume the presence of flak affects their attack roll?

Hard Sarge -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 3:29:26 PM)
Does anybody ever read anything ? the JP pilots were very impressed with the amount of Anti-Air that was fired at them, and how quickly it was mounted (but will say that over all, the AA on the first round should be almost all lowlevel/light aa, so med to high alt attacks should not be facing HEAVY flak defences, until the 2nd round of the attacks) :) HARD_Sarge[:-]

DBS -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 3:44:48 PM)
HS Not disputing the impressiveness of the flak at PH - after all, I am sure that even the IJN veterans of China had never encountered modern flak on a large scale before. Nor the speed of response within the context of a surprise attack. But I am disputing its effectiveness in terms of actual kills. Completely agree with you on the light vs heavy. David

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 5:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge Does anybody ever read anything ? the JP pilots were very impressed with the amount of Anti-Air that was fired at them, and how quickly it was mounted (but will say that over all, the AA on the first round should be almost all lowlevel/light aa, so med to high alt attacks should not be facing HEAVY flak defences, until the 2nd round of the attacks) :) HARD_Sarge[:-] Despite any impressions, are the losses double what actually happened or not (remember how often many Japanese pilots, recon pilots at that, would call a destroyer sighted as a battleship too)? I've done a little looking and can't come up with anything yet, but I was under the 'impression' that the Japanese lost like 23 planes total, not only to flak, whereas I'm usually seeing double that many destroyed. I suppose nobody kept figures on damaged aircraft from the attack, but the damaged planes are quite staggering too a lot of times. All this and the the Vals and Kates from the last two carriers don't ever attack ANYTHING, but just get subjected to flak as far as I can tell. Maybe the flak losses would be a little lower if they actually bothered to bomb something.

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 5:54:14 PM)
BTW, to back my little impression, somewhat inaccurate though it was (I was pretty sure it was in the 20's) these are the figures I found through the web: quote: Balanced against the staggering American totals was a fantastically light tally sheet of Japanese losses. The enemy carriers recovered all but 29 of the planes they had sent out; ship losses amounted to five midget submarines; and less than a hundred men were killed.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 6:06:30 PM)
Here is a standard run of PH ... note the numbers are pretty much dead on history. If you screw around with the defaults, you will obviously change the results. [image]local://upfiles/8185/Sq476025373.jpg[/image]

Hard Sarge -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 6:09:06 PM)
Hi Charles I thought it was 28 (IIRC) so 29 sounds like the same ballpark, and maybe a different way of counting losses I can agree with the amount of Flak damage may seem high, but, that is how the game runs Flak, combat, landing, take off, anything, is going to be much higher then what most of us see, in our books or reports or files sorry DBS/Charles, think my reply came across much hasher then I had intended it to be HARD_Sarge

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 7:29:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Here is a standard run of PH ... note the numbers are pretty much dead on history. If you screw around with the defaults, you will obviously change the results. [image]local://upfiles/8185/Sq476025373.jpg[/image] Where did you get that? Did you play as the Allies doing that? I 'regularly' get 40 destroyed and the average is closer to 50 (total - with the air-to-air losses being 'maybe' 2-3). I haven't screwed with the settings in the least, apart from historic first turn, the normal difficulty level, and the surprise option. The losses I'm getting you might expect 'without' the surprise, or some grand Allied redeployment option, but that's not the case.

Charles2222 -> RE: Torpedo bomber "Extended" vs. "Normal" range (and altitude?)... (8/5/2004 7:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge Hi Charles I thought it was 28 (IIRC) so 29 sounds like the same ballpark, and maybe a different way of counting losses I can agree with the amount of Flak damage may seem high, but, that is how the game runs Flak, combat, landing, take off, anything, is going to be much higher then what most of us see, in our books or reports or files sorry DBS/Charles, think my reply came across much hasher then I had intended it to be HARD_Sarge Your point of 'that's how the game runs' is somewhat my very point. If you have a surprise option, which grants the Japanese twice the losses, is it really a surprise option at all? I bring this up because I'm guessing they thought of limiting Allied aerial response but not flak. The flak probably did much better than the aerial element historically, but then again it didn't knock 50 or more planes from the sky either. If this were just like any other turn, I would expect PH to fall into the fluke category, but then again you would think a surprise option would be catered very well for that one event, since it's an option to do just that from what I can tell. My reaction to your reaction (the smiley with the finger doesn't exactly help any) is considerably based on the premise that I might be getting a fanboy reaction, or, rather, that I'm expecting a fanboy reaction. It's only one crummy battle, but if I see 4 squadrons not attacking, still subject to flak, and frequently double the air losses it should be corrected. As it stands it's less of a surprise option and more of a lack-of-Allied-aerial-response option. And what's up with those last 4 bomber squadrons not attacking too?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.859375