Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Netties question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Netties question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Netties question - 10/21/2009 1:37:23 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline 		Hi,

Can anyone tell me what do I need to change in database for Betty/Nells to get them to at least somewhat useful level or is it now hard coded in AE that they need to be wiped out in every engagement (perhaps a bit too much "flaming cigars sindrome")?

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe
Post #: 1
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 1:52:46 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what do I need to change in database for Betty/Nells to get them to at least somewhat useful level or is it now hard coded in AE that they need to be wiped out in every engagement (perhaps a bit too much "flaming cigars sindrome")?


HISTORY

Unlike many Allied aircraft, no Japanese bomber or attack plane had much chance against a fighter. They all needed escort. That suggests the answer to your question is 'bring escorts'.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 2
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 2:22:47 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline 		I do m8, they still get eaten alive no matter what I do. Is why I ask if its hard coded or can I change something like durability? to lower the ammount I loose per attack. Semi-silly question but still...
Allied bombers of any kind fly unescorted into my CAP that usualy outnumbers bombers 10:1 but I get like MAYBE 1 shot down and they drop their bombs on 80-90% of runs (rarely they get chased away).
Only things that do get shot to pieces are DB's and TB's if are unescorted, but if its 2E or 4E they get trough as if they were all farking flying fotresses wich sucks donkey balls imho as I dont really see 3-6 Hudsons doing bomb runs every turn, get engaged by 20-30 Zero/Oscar and not getting shot down.
B-17 was without any question a better plane (except in low level torpedo bombing maybe ) than Betty but hudsons were not THAT much better.

Anyway, just like to know if I can alter something in DB to get them useful enough not to keep them grounded on training, ASW or transport all the time coz current state is ridicilous.

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 3
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 2:43:09 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		When you attack, send escorts with your bombers and send a sweep mission in at high level (assuming your fighters are decent at that level).  Assuming the sweep goes in first, they should work over the enemy CAP and allow your bombers to survive (some, at least).

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 4
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 2:53:40 PM   
goran007

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/3/2009
From: croatia
Status: offline 		Every Allied bomber had difficulty with any decent fighter flown by a decent pilot.

In war allies did bomb wherever they wanted because of air superiority and only basic tactics of Japan interceptors. That wouldn't be the case if Japan in 1944 had decent pilots and good organization and tactics (high enough air hq expirience), but that Japan could have in WITP AE




(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 5
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 3:09:16 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: goran007
Every Allied bomber had difficulty with any decent fighter flown by a decent pilot.
In war allies did bomb wherever they wanted because of air superiority and only basic tactics of Japan interceptors. That wouldn't be the case if Japan in 1944 had decent pilots and good organization and tactics (high enough air hq expirience), but that Japan could have in WITP AE


Its January 41 and in my game allies have no air superiority atm , allied bombers fly mostly unescorted or poorly escorted.
I swept the base where AVG was "hidding" just to find noone was there. They were on LRCAP over another base
2 good sweeps over it and escort for Bettys and result is no hit on enemy ships and (before the flight the unit was full and happy ):






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to goran007)
Post #: 6
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 6:09:20 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		One Lesson you usually learn the hard way:

Always set your Netty Max Range to match the the max range of any escort fighters in the hex. You don't want them attacking things outside of fighter escort range. What that means is that the real effective range of Netty in AE is 14 hexes, because that is the max range of the A6M2 using drop tanks.

I would never have Netty set to longer than 14 hexes in range unless you were using it for Nav Search.


_____________________________


(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 7
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 8:06:12 PM   
rattovolante


Posts: 188
Joined: 8/30/2009
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok





How do you get that "bombing accuracy" percentile? I've never seen it so far, at least, my Kanoya Ku K-1 does not have it!


FWIW my losses are way lower than yours (my Kanoya Ku K-1 lost 5 planes in 2 weeks, 3 of which were lost in a single raid where they sortied without fighter escort), but I don't seem to do anything different from you. What are the fatigue levels of your fighter escorts/sweeps? Before the escort/sweep mission, I mean.

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 8
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 9:45:47 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline 		No clue. Some units have that some units dont.
I was gonna make an angry thread about that also but i gave up ( noone seems to care how angry some stuff makes people even if you do have a reason to be).

Reason is that my Nate unit that never did a bombing run has Bombing acc. 96% while my Netties have crap like this 5%.
Even "crack" Betty units never got close to 10%.

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to rattovolante)
Post #: 9
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 9:50:38 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline 		Here it is, the crack Nate unit with nice kill/death ratio and uber bombing capability






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 10
RE: Netties question - 10/21/2009 11:22:53 PM   
GB68

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 8/4/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rattovolante


quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok





How do you get that "bombing accuracy" percentile? I've never seen it so far, at least, my Kanoya Ku K-1 does not have it!


FWIW my losses are way lower than yours (my Kanoya Ku K-1 lost 5 planes in 2 weeks, 3 of which were lost in a single raid where they sortied without fighter escort), but I don't seem to do anything different from you. What are the fatigue levels of your fighter escorts/sweeps? Before the escort/sweep mission, I mean.


Rattovolante, I've noticed this percentage as well. It seems to appear after about a months game time. It seems unusual, especially as some units have been on mostly "ground attack" for most of the time and only have a rating of 25-30%. I guess it is indicator of the units effectiveness.

As for the OP thoughts, the Bettys and Nells are shown in the game in a very historical light, but for any changes you wish to make, I'd advise increasing their durability and most importantly improving their "Gun Value".

So , better guns, tends to drive the fighters away with defensive fire. Good Luck

_____________________________

"Are you going to come quietly, or do I have to use earplugs?"
- Spike Milligan

(in reply to rattovolante)
Post #: 11
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 12:15:27 AM   
StoneAge

 

Posts: 1303
Joined: 2/16/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

I wanted them to intradict shipping heading for singapore but not attack Singapore (ships always spotted in port but a 30+ fighter Cap). If you put a range past Singapore to get at shipping between Singapore and Java , they attack Singapore without fighter support or drop tank range, still not a good idea.

To stop the attacks on Singapore you set the range shorter than Singapore. This then means that shipping between Singapore and Java out of range.

I think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.



(in reply to GB68)
Post #: 12
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 4:44:22 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok
noone seems to care how angry some stuff makes people ...


True, but if you want to do something in the editor to make netties tougher try increasing their durability ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 13
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 10:09:09 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

I wanted them to intradict shipping heading for singapore but not attack Singapore (ships always spotted in port but a 30+ fighter Cap). If you put a range past Singapore to get at shipping between Singapore and Java , they attack Singapore without fighter support or drop tank range, still not a good idea.

To stop the attacks on Singapore you set the range shorter than Singapore. This then means that shipping between Singapore and Java out of range.

I think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.





HISTORY

The CW kept the shipping lane to Singapore active until the very end.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to StoneAge)
Post #: 14
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 10:58:35 AM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

HISTORY

The CW kept the shipping lane to Singapore active until the very end.


If theres anything that pisses me off its this HISTORY posts
Im trying to play a game with alternative outcomes being atleast a posibility. Im not trying to REPLAY world war II.

And, again, it is very unhistorical and unrealistic that farking Hudsons and other 2E bombers get trough a CAP and not get themself shot down by bunch of Jap fighters.
And this happens alot in AE.

This is whats bothering me:

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb


If these were Netties flying at least 70% wouldnt come back from this attacks.
Unbalanced, unhistorical, unrealistic.

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 15
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 11:07:04 AM   
Rapunzel


Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Maybe your cap is flighing to low. Set your CAP at 20000 feet. Use Zeros as much as possible. Nates and Oscars are not realy good frontline fighters.

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 16
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 11:30:46 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 17
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 12:25:10 PM   
vlcz


Posts: 387
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline
quote:

think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.


I see an interesting point here, it could be useful an option to limit operations to targets not in KNOWN enemy air superiority (I think IA calculates that each turn). Something alike the new option for TF routing by threath.

A switch in preferred targets (cargo/combat) for NAval strike would be surely wellcome as well.

(in reply to StoneAge)
Post #: 18
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 1:06:51 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.


Im sorry but Im not pissed at you m8 . Even tough I sound , hmmm, harsh? or even rude? Im not trying to attack anyone or get angry at anyone. And even if it does not seem like that I can take quite alot of "forum punching" before I get into flaming wars

Major point is i wish it was more balanced game, at least in the begining of the game.
Im just not seeing this being right and playable, allied CRAP 2E bombers escaping all sort of Jap fighters (Nates, Zeros, Oscars...) while Japs get torched all the time.
Even historicaly I dont think the situtation was like this. In above example theres 39 Jap fighters vs. 8 allied planes.
Seems like an overwhelming force for planes like Blens
And I could post whole bunch of this reports with the same outcome.

Its not just Blens and hudsons I can whine about all day
When I took Miri I have put 3 fighters squads there on CAP and yet there were 3x and rarely 5x B-17 bombing my ships in harbour for about 10-15 turns.
Betties trying to do that would leave my Betty pool at 0 after 3 turns.
3x B-17 surviving 20-30 fighters 10 times in a row, sinking 5 Tk's ? Wtf? Hello?
B-17 was what it was, great plane, could take alot of punishment. But 3 of those would never live trough 10 runs against 20-30 fighters, and certanly wouldnt sink 5 ships while doing so.
B-17 and Betty uncomparable? Yes, of course B-17 is better, definitly more survivable plane than "flying cigars".

But in AE things went a bit too far in allied favor too early in the game.

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 19
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 2:06:15 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.


Im sorry but Im not pissed at you m8 . Even tough I sound , hmmm, harsh? or even rude? Im not trying to attack anyone or get angry at anyone. And even if it does not seem like that I can take quite alot of "forum punching" before I get into flaming wars

Major point is i wish it was more balanced game, at least in the begining of the game.
Im just not seeing this being right and playable, allied CRAP 2E bombers escaping all sort of Jap fighters (Nates, Zeros, Oscars...) while Japs get torched all the time.
Even historicaly I dont think the situtation was like this. In above example theres 39 Jap fighters vs. 8 allied planes.
Seems like an overwhelming force for planes like Blens
And I could post whole bunch of this reports with the same outcome.

Its not just Blens and hudsons I can whine about all day
When I took Miri I have put 3 fighters squads there on CAP and yet there were 3x and rarely 5x B-17 bombing my ships in harbour for about 10-15 turns.
Betties trying to do that would leave my Betty pool at 0 after 3 turns.
3x B-17 surviving 20-30 fighters 10 times in a row, sinking 5 Tk's ? Wtf? Hello?
B-17 was what it was, great plane, could take alot of punishment. But 3 of those would never live trough 10 runs against 20-30 fighters, and certanly wouldnt sink 5 ships while doing so.
B-17 and Betty uncomparable? Yes, of course B-17 is better, definitly more survivable plane than "flying cigars".

But in AE things went a bit too far in allied favor too early in the game.



why should it be "balanced"? That´s exactly what this type of game should NOT be, at least not if it tries to be as historical accurate as possible and I guess that´s what the devs tried to achive. HOI is balanced, risk and Axis and Allies too. WITP AE isn´t balanced and it shouldn´t be.

_____________________________


(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 20
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 2:46:36 PM   
Streptokok

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline 		WITP AE isn´t balanced and it shouldn´t be
 
Nor is historicaly accurate.
So its unbalanced and historicaly unaccurate?

That sux even more...

_____________________________

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke

"Nuts!"
- General Anthony McAuliffe

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 21
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 3:34:53 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

WITP AE isn´t balanced and it shouldn´t be
 
Nor is historicaly accurate.
So its unbalanced and historicaly unaccurate?

That sux even more...

Is there a game more historically accurate? Certainly not of the scope of this game.

As for loosing Netties, you might be loosing them due to radar coverage helping the allied fighters. I think radar is being tweaked in patch 2.

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 22
RE: Netties question - 10/22/2009 3:39:14 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Well, I'd like my "crap Allied bombers" to actually bomb something.  My experience has been opposite of Streptokok's.  My Hudsons and Blenheims and Marauders attack a base or TF with fighter CAP over it, and they either all get shot down or return to base without bombing anything.  The rare times my P-40's escort them (usually from PM or Burma), they meet 40+ Oscars and end up returning then too, only with fighter losses to go with the bomber losses.  The only time they actually make a bombing run is if the hordes of Oscars don't show up for some reason, and then of course the bombers don't hit anything.

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 23
RE: Netties question - 10/23/2009 12:48:29 AM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, I'd like my "crap Allied bombers" to actually bomb something.  My experience has been opposite of Streptokok's.  My Hudsons and Blenheims and Marauders attack a base or TF with fighter CAP over it, and they either all get shot down or return to base without bombing anything.  The rare times my P-40's escort them (usually from PM or Burma), they meet 40+ Oscars and end up returning then too, only with fighter losses to go with the bomber losses.  The only time they actually make a bombing run is if the hordes of Oscars don't show up for some reason, and then of course the bombers don't hit anything.


Reading this post plus the OP, could it be some kind of AI advantage? Try experimenting with the head-to-head setting for a few turns.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 24
RE: Netties question - 10/23/2009 1:24:26 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out.


For what it's worth, I appreciate the occasional historical nugget, and I thought it was considerate of you to start adding the "HISTORY" header to avoid the occasional confusion that arose when there was ambiguity as to whether an item was a historical nugget or a game mechanic comment.


< Message edited by erstad -- 10/23/2009 3:52:05 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 25
RE: Netties question - 10/23/2009 11:06:22 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		A bit off-topic:

Herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.


just want to take this occasion to tell you that I actually always enjoy your posts a lot, so keep them coming .

A bit on-topic:

Gentlemen,

I tend to notice this strange effect: No matter which side I play, my units never perform as they should, whereas the enemy can do just about everthing. . There really must be some bias, only question is whether it truly is in the game engine.

Hartwig

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 10/23/2009 11:08:20 AM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 26
RE: Netties question - 10/23/2009 11:09:45 AM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb


You did not provide whole reports, at the end there should be info about your CAP and how many of them actually flew. But from what I can see here CAP only had 13 minutes from the moment of detection until attacks occurred. That is 13 minutes to climb to 17000-22000 feet. Note that raids were not accurately detected, it was thought they would arrive at 22000 and 19000 feet while they were at 17000, so those that did manage to get to intercept altitude had to drop down again, loosing more time. Also all 3 fighter types you had there only have machine guns, no cannons at all.
Low gun value with very little time to get into position and fire on bombers gives poor CAP results.

Now if the things were reverse results would probably be some more casualties on Japanese side. Reasons for this are many: Allies have better radars and have them earlier, early detection gives more time to CAP to position themselves and wait for incoming bombers. Allied fighters in general have better gun value than their Japanese counterparts, while Japanese bombers have no armor and lower durability. Nell/Betty had long range because of the fuel they carried, but that same fuel was the reason they burned so easily after few hits.

Increasing durability in editor and giving bombers armor and better guns would make them tougher.

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 27
RE: Netties question - 10/23/2009 5:23:31 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

Bombers in RL were generally unable to fly unexcorted daylight strikes, without taking disproportionate casualties. So Bettys seems to be OK so far. On the contrary Allied bombers, particularly 4Es, often seem way too durable (if only because repair seems to be non-issue, at least for AI). Historically, unexcorted daylight raids even by B-24 were too costly (even against roughly equal numbers of Ki-43), only B-29 were able to fly without escorts, and mostly because Japan's fighter units already were decimated and overstretched (numbers to absorb the losses and lack of fuel on Home Islands helped too). In this game, Zeroes regularly damage half to all of B-17s in a small strike, but instead of being grounded for a week or two, the Allied unit returns on the next day. On the other hand, 4Es don't seem to do that much damage (at least in groups of less than 20).








< Message edited by FatR -- 10/23/2009 5:31:50 PM >

(in reply to StoneAge)
Post #: 28
RE: Netties question - 10/23/2009 8:58:37 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

This is whats bothering me:

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna


Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb


If these were Netties flying at least 70% wouldnt come back from this attacks.
Unbalanced, unhistorical, unrealistic.


Your main problem is the plane, I think. Nate and Oscar Ia are useless planes, they have only two 7,7 mm machine guns. Oscar Ib is slightly better, it has one heavy machine gun with the light MG.

So my suggestion is that you upgrade those planes to Oscar Ic ASAP. Oscar Ic will kill unescorted Blenheims, trust me.

(in reply to Streptokok)
Post #: 29
RE: Netties question - 11/7/2009 2:54:25 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

In this game, Zeroes regularly damage half to all of B-17s in a small strike, but instead of being grounded for a week or two, the Allied unit returns on the next day.



Which is a bit of a problem, at least early war. Parts for the B-17's weren't that easy to come by and they really were grounded.

I think the accuracy rating for the A6M2 cannon is a bit low. Muzzle velocity wasn't that low (pretty close to the hispano IIRC) and it doesn't seem like that accuracy should be half of the hispano. Was there something wrong with the ordnance used? Wobbly? :) Wondering if the dev's are looking at a tweak there?

Historicaly we know that B-17's made only a very few unescorted raids on Rebaul early war and the losses were terrible. I have never been able to replicate them in game.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Netties question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.363