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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 7/13/2002 12:42:23 PM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		I've been following these level bomber threads with great interest, and I agree that some good ideas are being run up the flagpole here. I think it is very telling that few or even no level bombers are actually being destroyed by flak during low level naval attack tests.

I can accept the idea that such attacks can potentially score the high numbers of hits we see in UV 1.11, as long as such attacks become more difficult to prosecute and sustain over time than they currently are. At this point I'm thinking that the mentioned increase in repair times for damaged large aircraft, combined with some sort of increase in the effectiveness of massed low level AAA vs large slow aircraft (at least enough to allow a few destroyed aircraft) might be just enough to make this type of attack a little bit less of an uber-weapon than it currently is.

There's my opinion ... you know what to do with it. :)

- David

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 121
- 7/13/2002 2:39:39 PM   
emorbius44

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]I have brought up the issue of level bombers being too good bombing ships (and maybe other targets as well) at low altitude (especially heavy bombers) to both Gary and Mike. The simple answer at this time is that the current state of the game is not considered a bug. >>>

I think you should do a MAJOR reconsideration of that position. Right now B-17's can hit patrol boats with an accuracy that rivals Anni Oakley. This is flat out absurd. I just had a TF annihalted by B-17's from cooktown attacking gili-gili. Being May 1942, one should expect that historically given the time period, troop training level, morale, etc that while some transport hits might be expected one would not expect to see mutitple hits on patrol boats and destroyers, probably with a hit rate of 75% or more.
It essentially makes the game unplayable as an offensive can simply be shut down by deploying some B-17 shipbusters to stop it cold. My dismay at watching the results is exceeded only by your willingness to stand by them. Frankly I'm stunned by this position. After playing this game almost non-stop I have lost most of my enthusiam for it and if WITP is to have the same system then I'll pass......I don't think I'll be the only one.

Bob

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 122
- 7/13/2002 3:10:07 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by emorbius44
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]I have brought up the issue of level bombers being too good bombing ships (and maybe other targets as well) at low altitude (especially heavy bombers) to both Gary and Mike. The simple answer at this time is that the current state of the game is not considered a bug. >>>

I think you should do a MAJOR reconsideration of that position. Right now B-17's can hit patrol boats with an accuracy that rivals Anni Oakley. This is flat out absurd. I just had a TF annihalted by B-17's from cooktown attacking gili-gili. Being May 1942, one should expect that historically given the time period, troop training level, morale, etc that while some transport hits might be expected one would not expect to see mutitple hits on patrol boats and destroyers, probably with a hit rate of 75% or more.
It essentially makes the game unplayable as an offensive can simply be shut down by deploying some B-17 shipbusters to stop it cold. My dismay at watching the results is exceeded only by your willingness to stand by them. Frankly I'm stunned by this position. After playing this game almost non-stop I have lost most of my enthusiam for it and if WITP is to have the same system then I'll pass......I don't think I'll be the only one.

Bob [/B][/QUOTE]


What is your historical and logical evidence for suggesting that the performance of B-17s should be adjusted? What do you propose be actually done in the way of adjustment to B-17s?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 123
- 7/13/2002 3:13:30 PM   
Kavik Kang

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/9/2002
Status: offline 		I am not only talking about B17s, I am talking about all big bombers. I know a lot about WWII history compared to your average person, but not like a true grognard. So I am not debating anyone's historical data. I am only speaking about concepts in game design, which I have a lot of experience with. My opinion is simple and having said it twice already it doesn't need to be resated.

I just love any kind of navy game, in water or space, and this one is a lot like an old game I played called Carrier at War. Although loading transports is an uneccessarly mystical experience, I can live with all the little quirks that I know of. The one I would really like too see, though, is less of a threat to the carriers from land-based air. Not no threat, just less of a threat.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 124
nonono - 7/13/2002 6:20:20 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		I am sorry you wont convince Dhaad of anything with regards to B-17's. He has read some article on skip-bombing and that has cemented his opinion. I offer the performance of the B-17's
at Midway as an example of how they DONT hit moving ships.

I offer Morrison who flatly states that only ONE destroyer
that was NOT moving was ever hit by a B-17. But that doesnt matter to Dhaad. He will site some article that actually pertains mostly to B-25s in late 1943 as an example of how B-17's could have been used. It is useless.

In responce to Dhaads request that someone state how a B-17 should be used 'ingame':

I suggest that it be limited to recon, asw and strategic bombing.

However I see nothing wrong with allowing it to come in at 100 feet over the airbase. I just think that the flak algorithm be upped
to make it NOT cost effective.

Heck right now you can use the B-17's to attrit Zeros over Rabual
because you KNOW the B-17 wont get more than damaged.
That is flatly silly.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 125
- 7/13/2002 6:24:48 PM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by emorbius44

I think you should do a MAJOR reconsideration of that position. Right now B-17's can hit patrol boats with an accuracy that rivals Anni Oakley. This is flat out absurd. I just had a TF annihalted by B-17's from cooktown attacking gili-gili. Being May 1942, one should expect that historically given the time period, troop training level, morale, etc that while some transport hits might be expected one would not expect to see mutitple hits on patrol boats and destroyers, probably with a hit rate of 75% or more.
Bob [/B][/QUOTE]

J7B test showed a hit rate of 35% against larger targets (CVs etc) . This has been my experience also. I agree 75% would be to much, but 1/3 is exactly in line with the data I posted from an actual B17 raid in the Bismark sea.

If you are really getting a 75% hit rate than something needs to be fixed. However, I am skeptical, that you are actually seeing that instead just focusing on few bad results. Save the next 6-10 combat reports that you have where B17 are attacking ships. Edit them and post the results. (including any major damage to the ships prior to the attack and if they were docked plus difficulty level). I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when shown convincing data.

Finally, remember that one 500 lb hit on PC is basically enough to sink/leave it dead in the water so subsquent attacks are going to be much more accurate. This is true to a less extent for a destroyer.

My problem in a PBEM game is that darn B17 aren't attacking naval targets!

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 126
Re: nonono - 7/13/2002 7:49:56 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I am sorry you wont convince Dhaad of anything with regards to B-17's. He has read some article on skip-bombing and that has cemented his opinion. I offer the performance of the B-17's
at Midway as an example of how they DONT hit moving ships.

I offer Morrison who flatly states that only ONE destroyer
that was NOT moving was ever hit by a B-17. But that doesnt matter to Dhaad. He will site some article that actually pertains mostly to B-25s in late 1943 as an example of how B-17's could have been used. It is useless.

In responce to Dhaads request that someone state how a B-17 should be used 'ingame':

I suggest that it be limited to recon, asw and strategic bombing.

However I see nothing wrong with allowing it to come in at 100 feet over the airbase. I just think that the flak algorithm be upped
to make it NOT cost effective.

Heck right now you can use the B-17's to attrit Zeros over Rabual
because you KNOW the B-17 wont get more than damaged.
That is flatly silly. [/B][/QUOTE]

Please consider the folliwng information from http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/features/b17history/

--Autumn of 1943 almost saw the end of daylight bombing. The raid on Schweinfurt and Regensburg had been extremely costly. Of the 376 bombers that began the raid, 60 were lost to fighters or flak and another 162 had been damaged to some extent. In one raid, almost half the 8th Air Force’s B-17s were destroyed or damaged to a serious extent. The bombing of Germany had been put off for a full month while the Allies considered their options. To this point, the Luftwaffe had won the battle of Germany.

Please note that this is the worst most terrible most awful casulties ever suffered in a raid by the 8th air. Those bomber flew in daylight, unescorted for SIX HOURS OVER CONSTANTLY DEFENDED enemy territory. The flak weapons used against them were vastly superior to Japanese gear in that regard, and were guided by superior fire control systems. I would also point out that Me109s and Fw190s were superb planes, far better than the zero at bomber attacks. I am quite sure that the reponse to this will be that they were flying high, and we are talking about flying low. I can assure you that schweinfurt was without exception or qualification the most heavily flak defended individual target in the history of AAA and that at least five hundred fighter attacked teh formations at one time or another over thier flight in or out. against this litteral hell on earth that I remind you last six hours against an enemy whose tactics and equipment were quite optimized to fight at high altitudes, the b-17's destroyed rate was LESS THAN 20%. A low level bombing raid passing over a task force would be with AAA range for less than four minutes no matter how the ships were arranged and no matter how alert and on top of things the japanese crew are/were. Each bomber carries either 8 or 10 bombs (at lower alt's the thicker air would allow a far heavier bomb load than the european theatre). If six b-17s attack a convoy and each only hits with 10% of thier bomb load at what is point blank range, than that's still gonna be one hit per plane.

I believe that historically the failure was doctrinal. During the early war American subs were not allowed to do anything. By the end of the war, by altering that assinine theory of combat (no surfacing, nothing during daylight, etc) they ran out of ships to kill.

As far as the zeros, read this quote from the same source

--Against the Japanese the big bombers were a little bit more adept at protecting themselves. Zeros and Claudes were not particularly effective in bringing the big bomber down due to the small caliber guns and the armor plating of the B-17s. The light construction of the Japanese planes also meant that the lightly armed Fortresses actually had a chance against a Zeke. Unfortunately, the B-17s were most vulnerable when on the ground. Most were destroyed on the ground within a week after the attack and a couple were actually captured intact in the Philippines when the island was overrun.

The Japanese had air superiority over the Phillipines the way we had air superiority in the Persian Gulf war. Yet almost no b-17's were lost in the air. They were captured on the f'ing ground (F@#$ YOU MACARTHUR!!!)

Lastly I would point out that playing as the USN I have had japanese LBA (which was historically quite dangerous to ships due to superb handling both tactically and strategically) torpedoe my ships like target barges. This is not a case of one side has, other side doesn't

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 127
Your point? - 7/13/2002 8:04:29 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		What is your point? That high level sweeps over Rabual are realistic as far as using them to get rid of Zeros?

The Zeros could choose to NOT ENGAGE above a certain
altitude, that isnt a possibility in UV.

I am more than aware of all the ramifications and peturbations
of the 8th airforce of Germany. I do not agree actually about the
flak over Schwienfurt. I would say certain areas of Berlin
win hands down. But its a minor point.

The point is this. The invasion convoy for Port Moresby
was NOT destroyed by B-17s, in fact it wasnt destroyed at all.
They turned back after losing their aircover.

The slaughter in the Bismarks were NOT B-17s but B-25s
specially trained to do it.

The point is that the B-17s as this game portrays them cannot be countered. They make the Japanese NOT want to play.
If no one plays the game we all lose.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 128
- 7/13/2002 8:17:05 PM   
emorbius44

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]


What is your historical and logical evidence for suggesting that the performance of B-17s should be adjusted? What do you propose be actually done in the way of adjustment to B-17s? [/B][/QUOTE]

B-17's are too accurate against naval targets, especially this early in the war. I am aware that the original B-17's that escaped the phillipines tormented the Japanese later on and hit a number of transport ships but right now the B-17, at least from the games I've played, seems to be more accurate at hitting a small, highly mameuverable navals vessel then an SBD, VAL, TBF or Kate.
Hitting a ship is like trying to hit a bridge and hitting bridges or ships in WWII wasn't very easy for level bombers. B-17's were so innacurate against combat ships that the Japanese had contempt for them and only one hit was registered against a destroer in WWII. My DD got hit about as often as Tom Hank's Higgins boat hitting Omaha beach. I don't believe skip bombing was done from 1000 feet. Specifically the level bombing algorithm for B-17's is skiewed and should be adjusted to reflect what they could realistically accomplish.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 129
- 7/13/2002 8:35:13 PM   
emorbius44

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B]

J7B test showed a hit rate of 35% against larger targets (CVs etc) . This has been my experience also. I agree 75% would be to much, but 1/3 is exactly in line with the data I posted from an actual B17 raid in the Bismark sea.

If you are really getting a 75% hit rate than something needs to be fixed. However, I am skeptical, that you are actually seeing that instead just focusing on few bad results. Save the next 6-10 combat reports that you have where B17 are attacking ships. Edit them and post the results. (including any major damage to the ships prior to the attack and if they were docked plus difficulty level). I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when shown convincing data.

Finally, remember that one 500 lb hit on PC is basically enough to sink/leave it dead in the water so subsquent attacks are going to be much more accurate. This is true to a less extent for a destroyer.


1943!!!!! 1943!!!! 1943!!!! THAT is when the battle of Bismark sea happened. It was a major turning point in the war(precisely because of it's innovation. One reason is was so effective is the Japanese commanders assumed it was a torpedo attack, PRECISELY because the allies did it so RARELY up to this point they had never heard of it being done before, maneuvered their ships and that increased the effectiveness of the attack) but it didn't happen until 1943!!! I wish poeple would quit using that as an example. If this is to be a simulation of the war in the south pacific using 1943 tactics in May '42 is like giving ships the kind of AAA oirdinance they had in 1943 in 1942.
Your point might be much more valid in 1943 but early in the game and these planes bombed from 1000 feet, not 100.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 130
- 7/13/2002 8:58:34 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by emorbius44
1943!!!!! 1943!!!! 1943!!!! THAT is when the battle of Bismark sea happened. It was a major turning point in the war(precisely because of it's innovation. One reason is was so effective is the Japanese commanders assumed it was a torpedo attack, PRECISELY because the allies did it so RARELY up to this point they had never heard of it being done before, maneuvered their ships and that increased the effectiveness of the attack) but it didn't happen until 1943!!! I wish poeple would quit using that as an example. If this is to be a simulation of the war in the south pacific using 1943 tactics in May '42 is like giving ships the kind of AAA oirdinance they had in 1943 in 1942.
Your point might be much more valid in 1943 but early in the game and these planes bombed from 1000 feet, not 100. [/B][/QUOTE]

The B-17s at the Battle of the Bismarck Sea weren't skip bombing. They made level bombing runs at moderately low altitude, though still higher than 1000'.

On a more general note, employing historically available troops and equipment in ahistorical ways is pretty much the whole point of the game. Of the genre, even. If you have to do it exactly the way it was done IRL, why bother?

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 131
Point?> - 7/13/2002 9:15:44 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		The POINT as you call it is playing the game.
If one side has a lock...people STOP playing.

I dont care if a crew on a B-17 that had special munitions made
can skip bomb forever. The FACTS are the standard anti-shipping
load of a B-17 was TWO 2000 pound bombs. PERIOD.

They didnt use torpedoes or cluster munitions or magnetic mines.

They used two big blockbusters that rarely hit anything.

Why? because it was in the book. and the munition was there.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 132
- 7/13/2002 9:27:42 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		The Battle of the Bismark sea........................

A convoy of 6 AP's 2 AK's and 8 DD's left Rabal on March 1 bound for Lae, with seven thousand troops loaded.

March 2, B-17's and B-24 attack the convoy, sinking one AP.

March 2 (night) RAAF lunches a night torpedo attack.....all torps missed.

March 3 10:15am 180 aircraft attack the convoy, B-17s, B-25s, A-20s, Beaufighters, and P-38s. The aircraft attacked at different hights and direction, with the B-17 coming in at 7000 feet and B-25s of the 3rd Light Bombardment Group, A.K.A 3rd attack group coming in at low level to skip-bomb. The Zero cap was tangled up with the B-17s allowing the medium bombers to slip in with little hinderance from the CAP. At the end of the attack at 10:30am, all seven APs and AKs were sinking for the loss of 1 B-17, 1 B-25 and 3 P-38s. (Note that 59 Japanese aircraft were claimed to be shotdown).

A second raid was launched in the afternoon and strafed the rafts and lifeboats.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 133
Re: Point?> - 7/13/2002 9:37:35 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]The POINT as you call it is playing the game.
If one side has a lock...people STOP playing.

I dont care if a crew on a B-17 that had special munitions made
can skip bomb forever. The FACTS are the standard anti-shipping
load of a B-17 was TWO 2000 pound bombs. PERIOD.

They didnt use torpedoes or cluster munitions or magnetic mines.

They used two big blockbusters that rarely hit anything.

Why? because it was in the book. and the munition was there. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you'd read my post, you might have noticed that I wasn't talking about skip bombing except to say that the B-17s at Bismarck Sea weren't doing it. You might also have caught the phrase, "Using historically available troops and equipment..." (emphasis added).

Both sides have ahistorical tactics available to them which make the game much harder on the other player. I take it that you always play with historical IJN sub doctrine on? And never create a super carrier force by massing ten CVs and CVLs in one or two whopping TFs, right?

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 134
- 7/13/2002 9:40:18 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Also have read about the exploits of the eleventh airforce up in the Aleutians during '42 and early '43. Makes for interesting reading......seems that it was a Colonel Eareckson whom pioneered skipbombing.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 135
- 7/13/2002 10:38:03 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		My tests don't show anything being broken. They POSSIBLY identify areas that need further tweaking and refining for optimal play balance. The B-17 is (and was) a valuable tool for the Allies. It wasn't, however, an "Uber-Weapon".

The Battle of the Bismark Sea isn't strictly relevant. The B-17's bombed (mainly) from 3-7000', and in actuality they hit ONE transport, and about 5 more "near misses". What is more telling and pertinent is that the B-17's lost one AC to flak, the rest had the piss seriously shot out of them, and were down for repairs for a considerable time afterward. This from what would be considered a relatively lightly armed (flak) convoy.

I THINK flak is slightly underdone in general. I THINK naval flak is even more underdone. I THINK ground accuracy is fine, if anything, considering CAP will degrade accuracy, it's slightly low. I THINK naval bombing accuracy is to high, especially considering that all TF's are considered to be moving/evading. This accuracy rate in turn needs to be looked at while remembering the B-17 had 12 bombs on board, and the tests were conducted without any CAP/LRCAP. Also, the tests conducted prior to any of the IJN ships had their light AA suites upgraded...their flak ability really was pretty anemic. On the other hand, I'm using 6 AA Bn. for the ground tests...which is probably an ahistorically large amount of concetrated flak to be using as a baseline. I'm the one doing them, and the tests are pretty inconclusive to me, precisely because of all the variables and permutations possible.

What to do is a different story. We can scream "THE SKY IS FALLING", and stampede Matrix into rushing out and degrading the B-17 to the point of uselessness, or continue to test and come up with a balanced fix...IF anything needs fixed. Anything they do is going to have serious repercussions throughout game balance. There is nothing in my test results that show a radical game-killing bug. IMO, what they show is that there MIGHT be the need for some modest tweaking to a variety of interlocking game aspects. It might be repair time, it might be accuracy, it might be flak values, it could be a limit to the number of B-17's per attack...could be as simple as the B-17 durability rating needing revised downward slightly to turn some of the "flak damaged" into "flak kills". Probably, IMO, it's a combo of these factors and others I don't know anything about. Big changes have big impacts, and probably in places we don't want them.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 136
- 7/13/2002 11:11:18 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		I'll add the following regarding the Battle of Bismarck Sea from McGee's book The Solomons Campaigns 1942-43 from page 257:

3 Wednesday...USAAF B-17's and B-24's (5th Air Force), escorted by P-38's, cary out high-level bombing attacks, while B-25's and A-20's and RAAF Beaufighters and Bostons carry out relentless low-level skip and mast-head bombing attacks and strafing runs against enemy ships....Due to the nature of the battle, wartime analysts deemd it neither "possible from pilots'accounts to determine which ships were hit by which bombs" nor "possible to determine exactly how and when each vessel was sunk.".

So other than skip bombing it would seem there was no low level boming used in this battle.

I'm half way through this 639 page book of the campaign and have yet to read one account of B-17's or B-24's being used in low altitude attacks. Not to say there weren't any, but none worth recounting apparently. There are plenty of references to higher altitude bombing, with some of it being relatively ineffective such as on page 178 where 14 Flying Fortresses dropped 56 bombs on a dead in the water Hiei, "...only one of which possibly hit.".

Regarding CAP and bombers see pg 183 when 15 unescorted Flying Fortresses bombed transports approaching Savo Island on 14 November: "...from an altitude of 3 miles they loosed 15 tons of bombs over the transports, scoring one hit and several near misses. Zekes were present in equal numbers to the Forts and a lively aerial skirmish ensued, six of the enemy falling victims to the American gunners."

People are free to draw thier own conclusions, as I'm sure we all will. :)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 137
- 7/13/2002 11:30:29 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		While I'm on a roll :) here is a quote from pg 68 regarding US AA guns and Japanese high altitude bombing: "The 90-mm anti-aircraft batteries could and did keep enemy planes at a respectful altitude - say 27,000 feet - but even from that height the Japanese high-level bombers, who were unprovided with the Norden bombsight, managed to lay their "eggs" with care and no mean accuracy."

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 138
- 7/14/2002 1:46:01 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]The formulas are set up to significantly reduce the chance of a long range airstrike engaging a naval target that is not in a base/beach hex. Anything over 10-15 hexes is much less likely. However, maybe this isn't working to the degree that some would like. I would guess this is happening more to TF's that are hanging around for long periods of time while spotted by the enemy, thus allowing the max detect level to build up (I say guess because I'm not sure about the formulas involved).

Joel [/B][/QUOTE]

I think might be an area that you should look closer at...

Maybe more disruption should occur, even if artificially so, for level bombers that encounter flak and CAP. This might reduce the effectiveness of level bombers at 1000 feet without penalizing smaller torpedo planes.

While I look for more historical accuracy in a game, I also realize that due to the very nature of it being a game, that it also needs to be playable in a fun fashion from both sides. Thus some areas that may not be as historically accurate need to be 'fudged' to help create some sense of gaming balance that is reasonable without turning the game into pure fantasy.

I realize this is a tall order, but maybe the amount of disruption is just the place that some kind of balance can be achieved to avoid the gamey tactics currently in use, without removing them altogether.

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 139
- 7/14/2002 1:50:58 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]My tests don't show anything being broken. They POSSIBLY identify areas that need further tweaking and refining for optimal play balance. The B-17 is (and was) a valuable tool for the Allies. It wasn't, however, an "Uber-Weapon".

The Battle of the Bismark Sea isn't strictly relevant. The B-17's bombed (mainly) from 3-7000', and in actuality they hit ONE transport, and about 5 more "near misses". What is more telling and pertinent is that the B-17's lost one AC to flak, the rest had the piss seriously shot out of them, and were down for repairs for a considerable time afterward. This from what would be considered a relatively lightly armed (flak) convoy.

I THINK flak is slightly underdone in general. I THINK naval flak is even more underdone. I THINK ground accuracy is fine, if anything, considering CAP will degrade accuracy, it's slightly low. I THINK naval bombing accuracy is to high, especially considering that all TF's are considered to be moving/evading. This accuracy rate in turn needs to be looked at while remembering the B-17 had 12 bombs on board, and the tests were conducted without any CAP/LRCAP. Also, the tests conducted prior to any of the IJN ships had their light AA suites upgraded...their flak ability really was pretty anemic. On the other hand, I'm using 6 AA Bn. for the ground tests...which is probably an ahistorically large amount of concetrated flak to be using as a baseline. I'm the one doing them, and the tests are pretty inconclusive to me, precisely because of all the variables and permutations possible.

What to do is a different story. We can scream "THE SKY IS FALLING", and stampede Matrix into rushing out and degrading the B-17 to the point of uselessness, or continue to test and come up with a balanced fix...IF anything needs fixed. Anything they do is going to have serious repercussions throughout game balance. There is nothing in my test results that show a radical game-killing bug. IMO, what they show is that there MIGHT be the need for some modest tweaking to a variety of interlocking game aspects. It might be repair time, it might be accuracy, it might be flak values, it could be a limit to the number of B-17's per attack...could be as simple as the B-17 durability rating needing revised downward slightly to turn some of the "flak damaged" into "flak kills". Probably, IMO, it's a combo of these factors and others I don't know anything about. Big changes have big impacts, and probably in places we don't want them. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am in complete agreement Julie. Proceed with any changes with caution. A perfect simulation will be played with perfect historical hindsight and less consideration for the loss of human life, resulting in apparent ahistorical outcomes. People would rather play a glorious lie, than the harsh truth.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 140
a summation - 7/14/2002 4:56:26 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		For me, flak stats and so forth hold no magic. All I know is that 3 B17's are more dangerous to ship's than 60 SBD's. That is my REAL life playing experience till I stopped playing a few days ago.

I care little for the debate or consensus. Here is what counts to me:

The B17 was not used as a shipkiller because IT WAS NO GOOD AT IT. If it was, it would have been used that way. The plane modeled in this game is fantasy, FIX IT. Those heavy bombers were great at plastering land targets and later had some success at low level attacks on slow shipping, not fast warships.
It is more deadly than dive bombers designed specifically for killing ships and that is my point.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 141
Re: a summation - 7/14/2002 5:07:53 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B][B-17s are] more deadly than dive bombers designed specifically for killing ships and that is my point. [/B][/QUOTE]

That has been my exact experience as well. It's annoying to see 55 SDBs come up empty on an attack against enemy carriers, and then have half a dozen B-17s waltz in at low level and do the job better. This happens over and over, and makes me want to leave my carriers TFs in their docks as they have comparatively less value in hurting enemy fleets than does LBA, which I'm pretty sure is anything but historical.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 142
Re: a summation - 7/14/2002 5:36:34 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]For me, flak stats and so forth hold no magic. All I know is that 3 B17's are more dangerous to ship's than 60 SBD's. That is my REAL life playing experience till I stopped playing a few days ago.

I care little for the debate or consensus. Here is what counts to me:

The B17 was not used as a shipkiller because IT WAS NO GOOD AT IT. If it was, it would have been used that way. The plane modeled in this game is fantasy, FIX IT. Those heavy bombers were great at plastering land targets and later had some success at low level attacks on slow shipping, not fast warships.
It is more deadly than dive bombers designed specifically for killing ships and that is my point. [/B][/QUOTE]

I understand what you guys are say I am just not seeing results that are anywhere close to what you are saying. In my AI games as the US (Scenario 15, and 19) after the thread started I dropped my B17 from between 1,000 and 3,000 on Naval attack, with very disappointing results, because the B17 took so much flak damage and scored a few small number of hits ~15-20% and ranges between 15-24 hexes. Also it looks like B17 suffer twice the fatigue of other units. So when using them for Naval attacks it makes them have to rest longer to make airfield attacks.

Of course I am playing at hard against the AI some maybe that is why I am having a different results. My request is for people who are complaining to save B17 attacks and either post them or better still summarize them like J7B has done so we can see them.

This is my first PBEM B17 attack. Conditions were optimal Partly cloudy, and a fresh new B17 squadron (fatique 5 Morale 70) operating out of Noumea at ranges of 4 and 2 hex, against the remains of a Jap CV task force. (Devastors and Duantless from the Saratoga sunk it..)

FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/09/42

Air attack on TF at 49,68


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Tone
DD Wakaba

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet


Afternoon attacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,68


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Kagero, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 51,68


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Akigumo

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Checking my squadron I have only 4 operational B17 left 7 damaged. I sure wish my opponent would have let me have 60 SBDs.... instead. Do you really think these results are out of line.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 143
- 7/14/2002 9:32:16 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		another thought occured to me just now....one that might be pertient in the "operational loss" formula.

American heavy bombers proved amazingly resilient when losing even multiple engines after taking heavy damage either from flak or aircraft or both.

However.....a crucial component in being able to nurse your wounded bird back to base under such stressing conditions is "altitude"

If you lose two engines and are attacking at 100-1000 feet......i seriously doubt your going to be able to gain much altitude and might in fact lose altitude and end up ditching.

Navigating home at such low altitudes would be a problem too (landmarks etc)

Worse if your a twin engined bomber and you use an engine to all that flak (if attacking a ****ly target)

just a thought

It would help explain why B-17's were pulled off skip bombing duty in the first place........a plane is so much more vulnerable at such low levels and has less breathing space (in the form of altitude) when it comes to major damage

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 144
- 7/14/2002 9:54:01 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]another thought occured to me just now....one that might be pertient in the "operational loss" formula.

American heavy bombers proved amazingly resilient when losing even multiple engines after taking heavy damage either from flak or aircraft or both.

However.....a crucial component in being able to nurse your wounded bird back to base under such stressing conditions is "altitude" ...[/B][/QUOTE]

Another excellent point. I remember reading many, many stories from the war in Europe, of damaged B17s dropping out of formation and slowly descending all the way back to England in order to make it home. If such a big heavy bird takes serious damage, loses a couple of engines and doesn't have that 10K or more feet of altitude to burn (exactly how much altitude is needed depends on how long the return flight to the base is), they'd better start breaking out the life jackets. I have my doubts that this is currently modeled in UV.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 145
- 7/14/2002 10:35:48 AM   
Diealtekoenig

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline 		I am curious. Does anyone here have _strong_ opinions on the efficacy of LBA in the game?

I think that probably the effect of flak is a little under-done as well (I agree with Juliet 7 Bravo). Flak is _very very_ variable in effect US vs IJ and by year, though. And I don't really know that one fast low level pass with no time for the defender to get ready would really result in many more losses than a high level approach with time to see the planes coming and get the range (even radar directed guns will have trouble with 1 pass at 100 feet and the real radar directed guns are only at the end of the period covered).

A big problem here is wargamer-hindsight. We can test things in the game, find something that works but which might not have been tried way back then and then we use it over and over.

I wonder how Ghormley/Halsey/Yamamoto would have done at WWII if they could have played it all the way through 5 or 6 times first to see how all the landing craft and CVs and unrestricted submarine warfare worked and THEN tried the war for real.

We (wargamers in 2002) have this enormous advantage.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 146
- 7/14/2002 10:50:53 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
[B]I am curious. Does anyone here have _strong_ opinions on the efficacy of LBA in the game?

I think that probably the effect of flak is a little under-done as well (I agree with Juliet 7 Bravo). Flak is _very very_ variable in effect US vs IJ and by year, though. And I don't really know that one fast low level pass with no time for the defender to get ready would really result in many more losses than a high level approach with time to see the planes coming and get the range (even radar directed guns will have trouble with 1 pass at 100 feet and the real radar directed guns are only at the end of the period covered).

A big problem here is wargamer-hindsight. We can test things in the game, find something that works but which might not have been tried way back then and then we use it over and over.

I wonder how Ghormley/Halsey/Yamamoto would have done at WWII if they could have played it all the way through 5 or 6 times first to see how all the landing craft and CVs and unrestricted submarine warfare worked and THEN tried the war for real.

We (wargamers in 2002) have this enormous advantage. [/B][/QUOTE]

Very true...(on the wargamer trying new tactics issue) thats what makes it so hard to judge

I look at it this way. If low level attacks (not just skip bombing) were the way to go, then this tactic would have been enshrined in USN and USAAF doctrine from 43 onward as 'the' miracle tactic of the war....and we could have retired all those carriers and saved some steel. It wasn't. And postwar, weapons were later developed to allow aircraft to be effective at higher altitudes thus giving aircraft a "longer arm" to reach out and do their jobs with extreme predjidice

why was that? It may be simply because low level attacks were *dangerous* and put aircraft at their most vulnerable states.

You dont see that currently in UV, thus, everyone sets their LBA's to 100-1000 feet for naval attack.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 147
Why does nobody complain about the Japanese bombers btw? - 7/14/2002 8:18:10 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		One thing is in a scenario like 17 midway didn't happen. Since midway essentially broke the back of the Japanese air arm american carrier aircraft were able to roll about the south pacific more or less safe in the knowledge that they were in control..why risk your b-17s at low level when you can have them bomb fixed targets and your carriers can mess with the boats...

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 148
B-17s are too powerful - 7/15/2002 2:11:56 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline 		The B-17s are too powerful in the game.

The 43rd Bomb Wing first began training and flying some antisubmarine patrols along the New England coast with B-17, B-18, A-29 and LB-30 aircraft. In February 1942, it moved to the southwest Pacific and was assigned to Fifth Air Force, where it would operate from August 1942 to Nov. 1944. First equipped with B-17s and LATER CONVERTING TO THE B-24 IN MID-1943, the 43rd operated from bases in Australia, New Guinea and Owi Island, making numerous attacks on Japanese shipping in the Netherlands East Indies and the Bismarck Archipelago.

The group also experimented with skip bombing during this time and used this method for some shipping strikes, including attacks on Japanese vessels during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea March 2-4, 1943, in which repeated air attacks destroyed a large enemy convoy carrying reinforcements to New Guinea. Please note that this convoy was made up mainly of troop transports and about 8 destroyers.

After the Bismarck Sea engagement, "Ken's Men" turned their attention toward the reduction of enemy airdromes in New Guinea and New Britain and destruction of shipping in the neighboring waters. Targets hit in the succeeding weeks included Wewak, Madang, Rapopo, Arawe, and Casmata. Most of those attacks were carried out by a small number of planes because most of the Group's B-17's had been damaged in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea [and this against just destroyers. What would have happened to the B-17s if they had attacked cruisers and battleships with their AA?).

The unit's diary on 19 March noted: Reinforcements have been taking place at all enemy airdromes and General Kenny [Commanding General of the Fifth Air Force] is in Washington trying to get more planes and men over here to help us out. Our planes are badly shot up, but the boys still love 'em."

Few if any of the Group's attacks against Rabaul in 1943 were carried out against shipping because the Japanese were making greater use of the more distant harbor at Kavieng, New Ireland.

The most devastating anti-shipping blow of April and May 1943 was directed against a convoy which had been tracked to Kavieng. In a period of four days beginning on 1 April, 21 B-17's of the 43rd Group and 9 B-24's (probably from the 90th Group) harassed ships AT ANCHOR in Kavieng harbor. The B-24's dropped 500-pound bombs from 5,000 feet and observed large explosions. Some of the 43rd Group's B-17's also attacked from medium altitude, but the Fortresses skip-bombing from 75 to 250 feet caused the greatest damage. The official reports indicated that a 6,000-ton vessel was "left sinking," and two to four destroyers were damaged. That mission, which General Douglas MacArthur described as "a honey," considerably reduced the enemy's capabilities of supplying its beleaguered garrisons in New Guinea.


COMMENT:

In the above, please note that most attacks by B-17s were against merchant shipping, slow troop transports or lightly guarded convoys. Many of these attacks (and the most successful ones) were against Japanese ships AT ANCHOR IN HARBOUR.

I have never been aware in the real war of low level B-17s attacking Japanese cruisers, battleships or aircraft carriers on the open sea and living to tell the tale. . .

Even when the B-17s attacked Japanese destroyers, they took such heavy damage that most of them were out of commission because of needed repairs. Why? Because they were BIG, SLOW moving targets. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 149
- 7/15/2002 2:34:26 AM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline 		Ken's Men is a great site.

This article is rather interesting, and one wonders if this crew was not over reporting.

Anyway, flying a B-24 in one mission, this crew damaged two Nells, evaded fighters, sank a 7,000 ton Tanker with skip bombing, and two other ships hit and sunk.

http://www.kensmen.com/homefrontarticle.html

Thes guys even claim that in March 19XX? (I think it is 1945), the 19 - B-24s of this unit had sunk 20 enemy ships and damaged 4!

Who in the heck needs a Navy?

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

5.859