Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 7/3/2002 1:30:11 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]. There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros[/QUOTE]

But what about one hit on this carrier when it is also defended by a ring of surface AA? The Zekes didn't have the firepower to bring down many Forts, sure, and it was also dangerous for them to get too close. AA from surface ships has neither of these problems, and probably would have had a relatively easy time hitting such a big and slow target.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about skip bombing effectiveness at 100 feet here ... I'm talking about level bombing at a few thousand feet. With that sort of attack profile the Forts would be exposed close up and in profile to pretty much every AA gun in the fleet (including numerous ones with a lot more capability to bring down a large armored bomber than any fighter carried), and exposed for quite a while at that. I believe that would tend to discourage many such attacks by making them overly costly, and the game currently doesn't reflect that.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 31
- 7/3/2002 2:03:10 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		The AAA would be more effective against skip-bombers. I'd say you have to look at what the IJN vessels had available. At 3000-6000 feet ignore anything <40 mm and ignore anything 6" or greater as these were not AAA. You'd expect a VT-fused USN 5"38 to be very dangerous at those ranges, but what about IJN AAA?

You've raised an interesting question. Think I'll do some poking.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 32
- 7/3/2002 2:03:51 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about skip bombing effectiveness at 100 feet here ... I'm talking about level bombing at a few thousand feet. With that sort of attack profile the Forts would be exposed close up and in profile to pretty much every AA gun in the fleet (including numerous ones with a lot more capability to bring down a large armored bomber than any fighter carried), and exposed for quite a while at that. I believe that would tend to discourage many such attacks by making them overly costly, and the game currently doesn't reflect that. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with this comment. AA from a fully decked out carrier task force would be murder to 17s flying low because they are such huge targets basically, and are not effective at suppressing AA on approach to target. AA from a carrier task force consisting of a carrier and 4 destroyers would not be "murderous" but one with at least double that number of ships would be.

Matrix has been "tweaking" the AA effectiveness. The latest tweak is to give diminishing returns of AA firepower for each ship added to a carrier TF over 10 ships.

One problem I can see here, based on this and other comments, is that while the variables which describe planes account for things like climb rate, manuverability, etc., they do not seem to account for their size as a target. I could be wrong, and perhaps Matrix can verify. However, it would seem to me with the current set of variables, for the purposes of AA fire a 17 is just the same in terms of its vulnerability to be hit by AA fire due to size as a P-39, or an Avenger, or a Dauntless. In fact, without a target size variable or something of that nature, a 17 will be MORE likely to survive a low level carrier attack because

1) It is somewhat more likely to get hit by AA due to "manuverabilty" ratings being low as compared to a single or dual engine bomber

2) It has a much higher "durability" rating than any other plane in the game (including the Liberator), so AA will do less damage per hit as a percentage of the plane's total capacity to take damage.

But, the problem here is there is no "target size" variable that I know of. Therefore, on balance, 17s are likely to take a few more AA hits than other planes, but since the durability ratings are so high it means they are more likely to survive these hits than a smaller plane taking proportionately fewer hits.

This, I believe, is in fact a problem. Unfortunately, I know from personal experience that adding a new variable is a pain in the kazoo, so it will be difficult for Matrix to address this if they are even inclined to do so.

Again, I could be wrong about the target size thing, but it would explain the general sameness of the effectiveness of AA versus smaller and larger planes.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 33
- 7/3/2002 2:14:14 AM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		Of course, luck always plays a role. If this happened every single time, I would be rather upset. If it happens once in a blue moon, I chock it up to fate (good or bad).

I've had fifty dive bombers jump a Jap task force and not manage a single hit (and had half of my planes shot down by flak). I've also seen three Betty Bombers get past my 30 F4F-4 CAP & put three torpedoes right into my carrier, so it seems to vary wildly depending on the situation.

Of course, one could say that Wade McCluskey's attack against the 1st Air Fleet (the Kido Butai) was a fluke, given the lack of CAP at high levels (brought down by the US Devastators to wave top level), and the fully loaded flight desks (because of Naguma's indecision in a third strike at Midway or hitting the US carriers).

Everyone has a bad day....seems like UV takes that into account.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 34
defense - 7/10/2002 10:54:15 PM   
corbulo

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: rigel 5
Status: offline 		Can the Japanese player do anything to counteract this low altitude bombing of ships? Does it help to set interceptor altitude to 1k?

_____________________________

virtute omne regatur

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 35
- 7/10/2002 11:13:46 PM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		Try staggering your CAP if you have more than one CV. If you are being hit at 6K, set your CAP for 7K (and maybe 8K if you have the groups available).

I find fighters to be more effective diving on their targets, as long as they start within a few thousand feet of each other....

Of course I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with Nells & Bettys coming in at 200ft.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 36
STILL Disgusted - 7/10/2002 11:16:57 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		"There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros"

Ok, how about this result from a pbem game turn last night:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/13/42

Air attack on TF at 17,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3

no losses

no losses

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 1000 feet


Is this in ANY way historical or possible? I have suffered MORE damage to my IJN CV's in pbem games with B17 strikes than from SBD's!!! WTF? This game is about to be shelved as how can I have a chance of winning if B17's flying at 1000 ft almost always get thru and almost always score hits. IF I were the Allied player, I would ditch all my tactical bombers and ask for more of the heavy slow deadly "shipkillers". I am seriously considering ceasing my pbem games and moving on to a real "fantasy" game like Diablo or Warcraft.

:mad:

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 37
Re: STILL Disgusted - 7/10/2002 11:37:25 PM   
corbulo

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: rigel 5
Status: offline 		[QUOTE][
Is this in ANY was historical or possible? I have suffered MORE damage to my IJN CV's in pbem games with B17 strikes than from SBD's!!! WTF? This game is about to be shelved as how can I have a chance of winning if B17's flying at 1000 ft almost always get thru and almost always score hits. IF I were the Allied player, I would ditch all my tactical bombers and ask for more of the heavy slow deadly "shipkillers".

[/B][/QUOTE]

This is what I am experiencing as well. Forget Dive bombers, level bombers at 1 K are much more effective. I dont think it is historically accurate.

_____________________________

virtute omne regatur

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 38
Re: STILL Disgusted - 7/10/2002 11:39:54 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B...snip...

Is this in ANY was historical or possible?

...snip...
:mad: [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm no expert but that won't stop me from offering an opinion. :)

It never happened in the Solomons campaign, but certainly was possible. The easiest fix, if Matrix thinks one is needed, would be to have the flak tear these bombers to shreds like it would have if the tactic were ever tried. That would still leave the Allies free to try it if they want to accept the losses.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 39
- 7/11/2002 1:16:34 AM   
willgamer


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline 		Possible quick fix:

A new realism toggle that restricts B-17s to altitudes above 20,000 feet (or whatever is historically fair). Why not treat this just like the Japanese subs attacking merchants issue?

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 40
- 7/11/2002 1:37:32 AM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		What altitude was your CAP set at? What was the pilot fatigue? What kind of escorts did you have around the carrier?

Last night I hit a Jap task force with 34 DBs & 14 Avengers. The task force had a BB, 2 CAs, 1 CL & 3 DDs. I suffered heavy losses, with all of my aircraft either damaged or destroyed.

Of course, I have not had the opportunity to use B-17s in a while (as my supply problems continue to mount as I capture more bases - and the bastards in Pearl refuse to send me more APs & AKs).

If this continues to happen, I think (really think) something needs to be done - since I think B-17s only hit one Jap DD during the entire war (from high altitude anyway).

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 41
Re: STILL Disgusted - 7/11/2002 1:55:18 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/13/42

Air attack on TF at 17,49

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3

no losses

no losses

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 1000 feet


Is this in ANY was historical or possible? I have suffered MORE damage to my IJN CV's in pbem games with B17 strikes than from SBD's!!! WTF? This game is about to be shelved as how can I have a chance of winning if B17's flying at 1000 ft almost always get thru and almost always score hits. IF I were the Allied player, I would ditch all my tactical bombers and ask for more of the heavy slow deadly "shipkillers". I am seriously considering ceasing my pbem games and moving on to a real "fantasy" game like Diablo or Warcraft.
:mad: [/B][/QUOTE]Geez, that can't be me, I'm still recovering from the shellacking I took in the Coral Sea...

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 42
- 7/11/2002 1:55:18 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		The low altitude performance of B-17s, however, is not in question. B-17s hit many ships in a low altitude role during the limited time they were used that way (October-November 1942). They were nearly all transports.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 43
- 7/11/2002 2:11:45 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		"With that sort of attack profile the Forts would be exposed close up and in profile to pretty much every AA gun in the fleet (including numerous ones with a lot more capability to bring down a large armored bomber than any fighter carried), and exposed for quite a while at that. I believe that would tend to discourage many such attacks by making them overly costly, and the game currently doesn't reflect that."

At several thousand feet the flak would not be so murderous. TF flak is much less effective than comparable number of barrels on a land based installation in part because of the absence of fire control integrating multiple ships. And, frankly, to down a B17 with flak prior to bomb release requires really accurate shooting. Basically you need a burst on target. I'd not count on any navy being able to do that very well until the introduction of the VT fuse.

I'm not sure that this should not be a viable bombing option. It is, however, quite ahistoric. It should require a great deal of training and experimentation as an alternative tactic to high-altitude bombing. Likewise, skip-bombing should require specialized training.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 44
you know from a purely historical perspective.... - 7/11/2002 2:17:38 AM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		I think the problem is the ahistorical way the players use all level bombers here (massing them for example in PM and flying them in large groups low against naval targets) than the actual modeling of the way the weapons work.

IIRC the allies worst daylight bombing raid losses (say one of the early schwienfurt raids at the ball bearing plant) had losses like thirty percent. Thirty percent against probably the most heavily flak defended target in the history of such things with guns that could reach the planes at thier altittude as easily as the poorer shipboard AA of Japanese ships would have been able ot reach low level planes (see combinedfleet's homepage and read up on the mediocre to crappy levels of Japanese AA guns on thier ships. American ships had AA systems litteraly four or five hundred percent better, the difference was as great as thier torpedoes were to ours), crossing over many hundreds of miles of enemy territory defended continously and without pause by THE deadliest single engine fighters of the war. An FW190 was probably as threatening to a B-17 as would four Zero's be. A Task forces CAP would have probably no more than 20 minutes to attack and distract attacking bombers (perhaps less as thier radar was fairly poor as well), while the Germans had litteraly hours and hours to attack the formations on the way in and out in vastly better planes (for the purposes being discussed here, anit-bomber work mind you). All this considered and the American's still only lost around thirty or forty percent on the round trip.

In this game my low level bomber formations do take fair damage from defended warship taskforces. Given the very short time shipboard AA guns would have to engage a bomber flying at a 180 mph even at 1000 feet (the effective with a 25mm would have been only ninety seconds of in-range firing time. With the larger five inch guns it would have been about twice that but far harder to hit with slower shots and the poorer traverse mechanisms employed in those mounts).

Had American bomber groups had the guts (I shudder to think of it in RL, it would not have been fun) to go against Jap Carriers with each B-17 carrying a quick-release stick of 500 lbers in a group, they probably would have hit something and hurt it. A fleet CV was an awfully big target and even just half a squadron of forts would have dropped like fifty bombs on the damm thing.

From a gameplay standpoint its as frustrating as the Jap Super CV group is but not really less realistic were it to have actually happened that way...

IMHO

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 45
- 7/11/2002 2:28:20 AM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		It is hard for the programmers to model something correctly if it was never done historically (suicidal, etc).....You get nothing from nothing, so some educated guesses were made and we seems to have invincible B-17's taking out the entire Japanese Navy from 1K across the Pacific.

I've never had the opportunity to get up close and personally with my B-17s (using them against crowded ports is a real pleasure) against surface forces on the move, so this may be something that eventually gets tweaked.

I am concerned though since my bomber squadrons tend to get chewed up anyway just by regular use (while medium bombers tend to do a little better), so if you made the B-17s more vulnerable, you might just take them out of the game entirely.

Its a real balancing act, so it will be interesting to see if anything will or even can be done. I can live with it for the moment (since I'm still knee deep as the allies) - but this also brings up another one of my pet peeves -

The INVINCIBLE Nells & Bettys. I still have these guys coming in against multiple airgroups on CAP & scoring hits on my ships. Its frustrating to see 30 - 40 Wildcats completely miss two or three Jap bombers.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 46
Re: you know from a purely historical perspective.... - 7/11/2002 2:29:59 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by doomonyou
[B]I think the problem is the ahistorical way the players use all level bombers here (massing them for example in PM and flying them in large groups low against naval targets) than the actual modeling of the way the weapons work.

IIRC the allies worst daylight bombing raid losses (say one of the early schwienfurt raids at the ball bearing plant) had losses like thirty percent. Thirty percent against probably the most heavily flak defended target in the history of such things with guns that could reach the planes at thier altittude as easily as the poorer shipboard AA of Japanese ships would have been able ot reach low level planes (see combinedfleet's homepage and read up on the mediocre to crappy levels of Japanese AA guns on thier ships. American ships had AA systems litteraly four or five hundred percent better, the difference was as great as thier torpedoes were to ours), crossing over many hundreds of miles of enemy territory defended continously and without pause by THE deadliest single engine fighters of the war. An FW190 was probably as threatening to a B-17 as would four Zero's be. A Task forces CAP would have probably no more than 20 minutes to attack and distract attacking bombers (perhaps less as thier radar was fairly poor as well), while the Germans had litteraly hours and hours to attack the formations on the way in and out in vastly better planes (for the purposes being discussed here, anit-bomber work mind you). All this considered and the American's still only lost around thirty or forty percent on the round trip.

In this game my low level bomber formations do take fair damage from defended warship taskforces. Given the very short time shipboard AA guns would have to engage a bomber flying at a 180 mph even at 1000 feet (the effective with a 25mm would have been only ninety seconds of in-range firing time. With the larger five inch guns it would have been about twice that but far harder to hit with slower shots and the poorer traverse mechanisms employed in those mounts).

Had American bomber groups had the guts (I shudder to think of it in RL, it would not have been fun) to go against Jap Carriers with each B-17 carrying a quick-release stick of 500 lbers in a group, they probably would have hit something and hurt it. A fleet CV was an awfully big target and even just half a squadron of forts would have dropped like fifty bombs on the damm thing.

From a gameplay standpoint its as frustrating as the Jap Super CV group is but not really less realistic were it to have actually happened that way...

IMHO [/B][/QUOTE]

Excellent analysis. Totally agree. The game should allow for "ahistorical play" to some extent. I don't see any reason historically why the air forces available to the allies in the South Pacific *couldn't* have been used this way. In fact they were used this way from time to time, just not consistently.

After the B-17 skip bombing attacks in October and November of 1942, the Japanese *NEVER* attempted to send supply or transport ships to New Guinea again. That's right, I said never. They COULD have attempted to do so, but they determined that while they might actually land some supplies, they would lose most of the ships. Should we make up a rule that says "once the allied player sinks 10 or more transports in a one week period within 2 hexes of New Guinea, the Japanese player is prevented from sending any more transports to New Guinea" ? No, of course not.

By the same token, use of airgroups should be whatever is possible, and reasonable. Something is by definition both possible and reasonable if it was in fact done in a similar way during the war.

Still, however, I do think there is a hole in the game where AA effectiveness is not controlled for target size, which would bring a good disadvantage to larger aircraft at below 3-5000 feet.

Before making serious complaints about anything in the game, one should explore new tactics. While Japanese players complain about the low level use of B-17s against their carrier groups, you don't hear Allied players complaining about the low level use of Bettys. Because Bettys were used this way as long range torpedo bombers. B-17s were not used at long range for low level attacks on carrier groups. But could they have been? Of course they could have. Its not impossible. If the situation had gotton much worse in SoPac, and the Japanese much more aggressive, I think they WOULD have been used this way.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 47
Yes... - 7/11/2002 11:45:25 AM   
Kavik Kang

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/9/2002
Status: offline 		...This was my first lesson in the oddities of this particular game (like all games have). I came into it knowing that level bombers were not a threat to my fleet... boy was I wrong. Or, I should say, was the game wrong. One of the most well known qualities of WWII era level bombers is that they were nearly useless against ships. In fact, I may be remembering this wrong because I am only a casual WWII buff... but, didn't level bombers try to sink the Yamatto for hours unsuccessfully before other more well-suited units arrived to do the job???

_____________________________

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 48
Re: Yes... - 7/11/2002 1:43:37 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kavik Kang
[B]...This was my first lesson in the oddities of this particular game (like all games have). I came into it knowing that level bombers were not a threat to my fleet... boy was I wrong. Or, I should say, was the game wrong. One of the most well known qualities of WWII era level bombers is that they were nearly useless against ships. In fact, I may be remembering this wrong because I am only a casual WWII buff... but, didn't level bombers try to sink the Yamatto for hours unsuccessfully before other more well-suited units arrived to do the job??? [/B][/QUOTE]

You are quite wrong. Level bombers used in the low level skip bombing role were probably responsible for the destruction of more transport than any other class of weapon except submarines in the Pacific. Basing an assessment of the relative threat posed by medium bombers to your ships based on a story about an attack on the most heavily armored ship of WWII is inadvisable.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 49
- 7/11/2002 1:58:53 PM   
Kavik Kang

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/9/2002
Status: offline 		I am not basing it on that. As far as I know, and I know a lot about most forms of combat, level bombers were notoriously bad at attacking warships. A big slow transport is a little different than hitting a thin warship traveling at 25 knots+. Historically, level bombers were not a real threat to warships of this time period. I'm sure todays accurate B52's would easily wipe out ships in droves, but in WWII they are well known for being very bad at hitting a fast moving warship. I think another poser earlier said only one warship was sunk by level bombers during the entire war.

And the Yamato example is a good one as, if I remember correctly, it's armor didn't come into play... they couldn't hit it.

BTW, I'm not complaining, I love this game:-)

_____________________________

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 50
- 7/11/2002 2:09:32 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		Level bombers sank a lot of [B] transport [/B], said I, but that is not to say they didn't sink other types of ship, like warships for example. They did. But the simple fact was that a good naval commander, theater commander, what have you, would not expose warships to attack by land based aircraft, including level bombers, unless there was no alternative to executing their mission.

High-altitude level bombing was not effective during the war against anything but totally stationary craft. A number of high level bombing raids did in fact destroy ships in port at Rabaul, Truk, Haiphong, Shanghai, and a host of other ports, and in Japan. But, this was usually because they couldn't be moved and were in port for serious repair.

Low level glide or skip bombing, by medium and light bombers, however, was very effective at hitting even moving ships, and knocked out quite a bit of transport type ships during the war. As I said, though, once an air presence was established in an area, wise commanders usually made sure they could establish some kind of cover, or moved any warships away from the threat.

It is a mistake to conclude from the historical data that level bombers are no threat to warships. Quite the opposite, which is why there weren't that many sunk by low altitude attacks : commanders didn't expose them.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 51
- 7/11/2002 5:22:57 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		High altitude bombing was ineffective - agreed.

Skip bombing at 100' was effective with a trained crew - agreed.

Where does that leave us then with the tactic of level bombing runs at 1000'? Players appear to be gaming the system to great effect. If the tactic were that effective then we should be able to read lots of accounts of it being employed during the Solomons, but I don't recall any. Can anyone from Matrix comment on whether this is considered a "bug" that will be fixed in the 1.20 patch? Thanks.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 52
Skip Bombing - 7/11/2002 6:21:05 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline 		elmo3,

:confused: Maybe they are skip bombing when set to 1000ft? Since the combat reports show level bombers set at 100 ft attacking at 1000ft, maybe its not being reported properly? I know the manual says 100ft for skip bombing, but I've only seen them strafe at this altitute and the .pdf docs that came with the patches don't address this. On the other hand maybe 3 B-25 releasing a total of 18 500lb bombs at a ship is having some kind of shotgun effect?
:D I know at times it seems like the level bombers are shooting ducks in a barrel!

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 53
- 7/11/2002 7:23:23 PM   
Kavik Kang

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/9/2002
Status: offline 		I don't think it is reporting wrong. I think the programmers took the logical most simple approach and made altitude affect bomb accuracy/effect based on some type of simple curve. The lower altitude end of that curve is too powerful. I think it is that simple. I have a lot of game design experience, and that would be my best educated guess at what the real problem is... a single value in a data file:-)

_____________________________

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 54
- 7/11/2002 7:46:40 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		I for one don't know what is happening or why. Hopefully somebody from Matrix can help us out with some details and/or a comment on whether this is a bug or feature.

Level bombing from 1000', i.e. not skip bombing, would probably have been very effective against minimal or no flak. However at that altitude I'd bet even small AA guns would penetrate a windshield or shred a prop and could probably go through some armor. If true then the tactic should be very costly in the face of decent flak. _If_ the tactic wasn't used much or at all during the campaign then there must have been a reason.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 55
- 7/11/2002 8:50:22 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		In addition, I suspect they didn't give the AC a "size" (as mentioned previously)...I'd think there should be a size for each AC, which is used as an additional numerical modifier on the AA effectiveness values. Likewise on a simple slope. If they did, it needs to be tweaked further. A B-17 would obviously have a high value size modifier, thus making it much more vulnerable to AA fire, especially at low attitudes where it is within the engagement envelope of everything including thrown rocks and harsh words. This, like many other aspects of gameplay, has been simplified and "abstracted" to the point of being virtually nonexistent.

As is, I find AA fire to be less effective overall than it should be, both ground and sea. This, IMO, is the source of the discrepencies noted by people on in the number of AC lost/damaged during attacks, not the CAP or air-air combat routines. It's really not off wildly overall given the ahistorical attacks/conditions, but it really shows up badly when dealing with big slow AC like the B-17 (and twin engine bombers to a lesser extent) at low altitudes, and with the ship AA (badly).

There's no doubt that the B-17 COULD be used in low level skip bombing attacks. There's no doubt that they COULD be effective in this role. What is likewise beyond doubt is that they DID NOT use it widely in this role. I'd submit it was because they'd take crippling losses in the process...THIS is what's not being modeled. Even at Bismarck Sea, where they (B17) were bombing mainly at around 5000', against transports and DD's, the hvy bomber groups involved were combat ineffective for a considerable time afterward due to damage incurred...and the IJN ships involved had pathetic AA suites.

"It is a mistake to conclude from the historical data that level bombers are no threat to warships. Quite the opposite, which is why there weren't that many sunk by low altitude attacks : commanders didn't expose them"

The B-17 could cover the entire theatre, more or less. All it takes to skip bomb is a single 500 lb bomb. Just by being within area, the warships were being exposed to anyone ballsey enough to go after them. If they didn't get attacked by swarms of skip bombing B-17's, there's probably a good reason...they (and the other AA guns) were a bigger threat to the B-17's, than the B-17's were to them. Especially given the relative ineffectiveness of the Zero against the B-17...they had to be "afraid" of something.

According to the US Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, over 60% of all US AC lost in the Pacific, to all causes, were lost to AA fire...this is most definitely not modeled. And B-17's at super-low altitudes would have to be first up to get bodyslammed I'd have to think. In the last game, before I abandoned it, I'd (as US) lost 1411 AC to all causes. Of these, I lost 185 to flak (no low level B-17 bomber attacks), or 13%. Even given FOW and atypical mission profiles, this would appear to be somewhat off. *NOTE: The Jap. side lost more AC to AA fire, at around 18% of the total.

I apologize in advance for what might be considered a "negative" post.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 56
I don't know what other people experience - 7/11/2002 9:04:44 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		but I will tell you that my bomber groups are usually in fairly nasty way especially after several bombing raids at low level...most of my bomber groups are at 50% effectives possbly less. I have a total of perhaps 25 operational b-17's....

I think that the real solution to this problem is to have a toggle (as was suggested by other people above) which simply puts all level bomber aircraft at a five thousand foot floor when attacking shipping. OR just make a house rule about it....frankly as nasty as the b-17 is I have done more damage with five ship sboat wolf packs hanging around rabul than with b-17s...which is also very ahistorical

(shrug)

one other thing I don't think matching tactics to "historical examples" works very well in games. Playing as a French Player in a wwii wargame you would have been stunned to find out how many german tanks were lost to french Char's. You'd say but the germans didn't lose many tanks at all to the French armor, could point to any WWII book and stay what gives......and I would point out that the french never attacked the lighter armed German machines on open ground with infantry support in great numbers..it isn't the games fault that I collected all my armor up and used it as a heavy hammer...

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 57
- 7/11/2002 10:12:46 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Ok. A few things. AC size should not affect flak at altitudes >1000 feet. The only AAA that's gonna hit at that altitude is >40 mm. The rapid fire small end range of that are rather like fire hoses. Pretty accurate but not precisely accurate. Larger caliber guns require fusing, so 99% of the job is accurately estimating target elevation and airspeed. Get the fuse right and the shrapnel, which is inherently an area weapon, will likely get some hits. As an AAA gunner you hope that the shrapnel hits something important. Bursts in plane or direct hits were extremely uncommon, even among gun batteries whose range finders were highly trained.

Japanese weapons smaller than 26mm aren't going to penetrate the armor on anything. Their damage will be accretional.

USN planes kicked the crap out of Yamato, very quickly scoring multiple and very damaging hits. She was mission kill rather early in the fight, but took considerably longer to sink in part because of her enormous bulk.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 58
Death of Yamato - 7/11/2002 10:29:46 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Here is death of Yamato from combinedfleet.com. From first attack to final explosion and death plunge is just under 2 hours. Not very impressive. Her exceedeingly thick armor seems not to have helped her much against 1000 pound AP bombs and aerial torpedoes. IMO the principle reason why she did not sink faster was her bulk. Lots of void space to flood before gravity could take over.


1232: A lookout spots American planes 25 degrees to port, elevation 8, range 4,375 yards, moving to port. This is the first wave of 280 aircraft (132 fighters, 50 bombers, 98 torpedo planes) from Task Group 58. 1: USS HORNET (CV-12), HANCOCK (CV-19), BENNINGTON (CV-20), BELLEAU WOOD (CVL-24) and the SAN JACINTO (CVL-30) and from Task Group 58. 3: USS ESSEX (CV-9), BUNKER HILL (CV-17), BATAAN (CVL-24) and the CABOT (CVL-28).

Lagging behind the main force, the destroyer ASASHIMO is attacked and sunk by aircraft from the SAN JACINTO.

1234: The YAMATO opens fire with her two forward main turrets and AA guns.

1235: The YAMATO stops zigzagging and increases speed to 24 knots. Her nine 18.1-inch guns firing "Sanshikidan" beehive shells, twenty-four 127-mm. AA guns and one hundred fifty-two 25-mm AA guns all open fire. The American planes release their bombs and torpedoes and strafe the bridge with machine-gun fire.

1240: The YAMATO is hit by two AP bombs. Smoke rises from the vicinity of the mainmast and a bomb explodes in the same area. The aft secondary battery fire control, secondary gun turret and the air search radar are knocked out.

The Attack Force changes course to 100 degrees. "Helldivers" from the BENNINGTON and the HORNET attack from port. At flank speed, the YAMATO commences a right turn but two 1000-lb AP bombs hit her. The first explodes in the crew's quarters abaft the Type 13 radar shack. The second penetrates the port side of the aft Command station and explodes between the 155-mm gun magazine and main gun turret No. 3's upper powder magazine. It starts a fire that cannot be extinguished and rips a 60-foot hole in the weather deck. One "Helldiver" is shot down, another is damaged badly.

1243: A section of five low flying "Avengers" from the HORNET start a torpedo run from the port, bearing 70 degrees. The YAMATO, at 27 knots flank speed, heels to starboard in evasive action. The "Avengers" drop three torpedoes. One strikes her port side near the forward windlass room. One "Avenger" is shot down.

The YAMATO ships 2,350-tons of water. Damage Control counterfloods with 604-tons of water. Fourteen F4U Chance-Vought "Corsairs" from the BUNKER HILL strafe and rocket the YAMATO but cause only minor damage.

1245: Thirty-four "Hellcats", 22 "Helldivers" and one "Corsair" attack the YAMATO's escorts. DesDiv 17's HAMAKAZE takes a near miss on her starboard quarter that disables her starboard shaft.

1247: A torpedo strikes the HAMAKAZE starboard, aft of amidships and she jackknifes. The SUZUTSUKI takes a 500-lb GP bomb hit to starboard, abreast her No. 2 gun mount. Two dud rockets hit the FUYUTSUKI.

1250: The first attack wave retires. The destroyer SUZUTSUKI wreathed in black smoke, burns furiously. The light cruiser YAHAGI, without headway, drifts helplessly behind the main force. The YAMATO, despite hits by two bombs and one torpedo, maintains flank speed.

1300: The YAMATO changes course to 180 degrees, due South.

1302: Her remaining air search radar reports the approach of a second attack wave. The Attack Force changes course due south to 180 degrees.
1302: Fifty aircraft from the ESSEX and the BATAAN are sighted approaching from the SSW, range 18.5 miles.

1322: The YAMATO increases speed to 22 knots. A "Corsair" from the ESSEX drops a 1000-lb GP bomb that hits the superstructure in the port bow area. Twelve "Helldivers" claim several hits near the bridge and main gun turret No. 3. Five "Helldivers" are damaged by AA fire.

1333: Another 110 aircraft from Task Group 58. 4: USS YORKTOWN (CV-10), INTREPID (CV-11), LANGLEY (CVL-27) engage the Attack Force. This time all the attacks are concentrated against the battleship. Twenty "Avengers" make a new torpedo run from 60 degrees to port. The YAMATO starts a sharp turn to port but three torpedoes rip into her port side amidships. Her auxiliary rudder is jammed in position hard port.

The YAMATO has taken a total of four torpedo hits. She ships about 3,000-tons of seawater. She lists about seven degrees to port. Damage Control counter-floods both starboard engine and boiler rooms and almost entirely corrects the list.

The YAMATO starts a turn starboard to course 230 degrees. One of her lookouts spots the tracks of four torpedoes approaching. The first torpedoes pass by harmlessly, but the remaining two strike her port amidships. She takes on a heavy list to port and her speed drops to 18 knots. Armor-piercing and other bombs make a shambles of her upper works.

1342: The YAMATO turns hard to port. She continues to throw up a screen of desperate flak fire. One "Avenger" is shot down but her barrage is largely ineffective because each AA battery fires independently without coordination. The escorts cannot defend the flagship either.

1402: Three bombs explode port amidships, five minutes later a torpedo hits her starboard side amidships. Ten minutes later, two more torpedoes strike her port side. The YAMATO's list increases to about 15 degrees and her speed slows to 12 knots.

Executive Officer Nomura Jiro reports to Admiral Aruga that his damage control officers are all dead and that the counter-flooding system can no longer correct the list. He suggests that the order to abandon ship be given. The Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Ito, orders the mission cancelled and directs the remaining ships to pick up as many survivors as possible. The Emperor's portrait is removed.

1405: The light cruiser YAHAGI, hit by 12 bombs and seven torpedoes sinks exactly one minute after the last bomb hits. Listing heavily to port, the YAMATO's exposed hull is hit by one or two more torpedoes. She rolls slowly over her port side on her beam ends.

1423: Sunk: The YAMATO's No. 2 magazine explodes and sends up a cloud of smoke seen 100 miles away. She slips under followed by an underwater explosion. The YAMATO sinks at 30-22 N, 128-04 E.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 59
- 7/11/2002 11:12:43 PM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		A great description of this entire encounter can be found in "A Glorious Way to Die" the Kamikaze Mission of the Battleship Yamato.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

2.985