Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Is night air combat broken?

 
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 >> RE: Is night air combat broken? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 7:50:06 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

All you need to do is search the forums.

I dont often play the allies, but my last allied game I know that 7 of my top 10 "aces" were B-17 pilots (in mid-42). I dont have the game saved or I would post a screen shot.


Funny, I´m in late 44 and my "best" bomber pilot have two kills.

(in reply to MDDgames)
Post #: 61
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 9:32:28 AM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 1112
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni
I wish more people would show statistically significant experimental results to back up their claims on these forums, instead of endless threads like this one with just more rhetoric and anecdotes. I want realism out of this game. The more realistic the better. I believe that's something we all should want.


Not necessarily... Ultimate realism, where the game unfolds as per historical events, no matter what the players do, would not result in a very interesting game, would it? More seriously, a balance has to be found between what is determined by the engine, the scenario, the OOB, and all the hardcoded factors, and what results from player actions. If player actions are irrelevant, the game becomes futile, and opponents will become scarce.

As Pax explained, it is a game balance problem, which is a matter of perception, and feelings, and frustrations. Early war 4E night bombing is an issue because many longstanding players (like most of the commentators here) believe it is one of those strategies where no counter can be found. It won't really change the game (the Allies don't have enough 4E for that early in the game), but it is frustrating enough to take the fun out of it.

Francois

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 62
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 10:41:22 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I thought it was pretty much established that defensive fire from bombers does not take into account that its night? So they fire with the same accuracy as they do in daylight? Might have gotten it wrong though?

It is hard to tell if accuracy is even used, when 4Es fire against attacking fighters. NEMO in his modified Downfall made some experiments, and he cut 4Es defensive MGs accuracy into half TWICE (so they ended at only 25%), and did not noticed much difference.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 63
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 3:40:18 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

All you need to do is search the forums.

I dont often play the allies, but my last allied game I know that 7 of my top 10 "aces" were B-17 pilots (in mid-42). I dont have the game saved or I would post a screen shot.


Funny, I´m in late 44 and my "best" bomber pilot have two kills.


Well, one reason for that most likely is that you use massed bombing of 200-400 planes against one target, so that it's spread over many pilots. Counting up total bomber pilot kills might be a better indication of how many kills you're getting.

Another may be that you also wipe out most of my fighters before they ever get to the bombers.

Some of your B-25D1 and later version front-mounted strafing gun planes must have pilots that get quite a few kills. My fighters have been decimated by them quite a few times. They of course have almost double the defensive rating of a 4E and all guns seem to be used in the defensive calculation even though only two moveable MGs in one turret are on the plane.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 64
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 4:28:32 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

Ultimate realism, where the game unfolds as per historical events, no matter what the players do


Hang on a minute, that is NOT realism. Realism is where the game elements behave in accordance with their realistic capabilities, with appropriate randomness, appropriate variable influences (example, weather influences, and so on), and are influenced in a realistic way by the orders of the player (aka commander).

Granted, sometimes when a forum poster says they are looking for realism they are really looking to take their opponent's decision(s) out of the equation, but that is a misuse of the term 'realism'.

I agree with the rest of your post, just not the description of the term 'realism'.

_____________________________


(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 65
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 4:34:36 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Some of your B-25D1 and later version front-mounted strafing gun planes must have pilots that get quite a few kills. My fighters have been decimated by them quite a few times. They of course have almost double the defensive rating of a 4E and all guns seem to be used in the defensive calculation even though only two moveable MGs in one turret are on the plane.


I have 2 attack bomber pilots with 2 kills each. Then a bunch of guys with one kill. Not too surprising I have a lot of kills among the B29 pilots though. Thats due to night bombing being bonkers as we all know by now!

Just did a very quick count on the B29 pilots.
1 - 6 kills
4 - 5 Kills
7 - 4 kills
10 to 15 - 3 kills
30-50 with one or two kills

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 8/24/2013 4:45:39 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 66
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 4:44:56 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

The common knowledge of the forum about 4e bombers mostly consists of a vocal group who complain endlessly about how OP 4e bombers are without anything more then anecdotes and feelings to back up their claims.

There are and have been endless threads about how OP 4e's are since AE's inception which don't pan out in the real game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's are better at sweeping enemy fighters then actual fighters are, doesn't happen in the game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can go in, unescorted against swarms of fighters and not suffer any losses doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can operate day after day after day without pause doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" about how OP 4e bombers are at naval attack doesn't actually happen in game. The common "knowledge" that the allies can operate huge swarms of 4e bombers from the start of the game doesn't actually happen, in game. The common "knowledge" of the forums refuses to acknowledge or accept that 4e bombers will suffer operational losses that dwarf their actual combat losses (said combat losses aren't mythical or insignificant either), or that replacement numbers are miniscule until toward the end of the war.

There seems to be a vocal subset of the forums who have some sort of collective groupthink about how OP 4e bombers are that bears little resemblance to actual gameplay results.

Which leaves me to question any sort of balance complaint brought up about 4e bombers. Is this thread about how OP night air 4e bombers are legitimate (it started out about night combat but seems to have morphed into a 4e bombers vs japan at night thread)? Or is it just another of the endless common "knowledge" threads about how unfair and OP and invincible 4e bombers are?

The fact that already there have been claims that the japanese 2e bombers obviously don't suffer from the over poweredness of the 4e's leads me to doubt the veracity of this complaint as well.

I wish more people would show statistically significant experimental results to back up their claims on these forums, instead of endless threads like this one with just more rhetoric and anecdotes. I want realism out of this game. The more realistic the better. I believe that's something we all should want. If 4e bombers are behaving unrealistically I want their behavior improved, even if that "improvement" is a negative change for the allies. An improvement of increased realism is an improvement to the game as a whole. But it's hard to find any sort of balanced viewpoint backed up by more then just feelings about 4 engine bombers on these forums.


(apologies if this post came off as hostile or nasty. bad day at work and I'm still all twitchy and out of sorts)


Firstly, the Original Post which I've back-linked you to here. In it there is a combat report example. Only one, so not much, but it is what you're asking for, which is an idea backed up by at least some evidence.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3387808

Secondly, almost the entire thread has been focused on night bombing. I have been especially interested because I have had some difficulty dealing with the validity of night bombing results as well as the difficulty of responding to it from the Japanese side due to the incredible losses taken by NF or day fighter sent up to CAP against night bombing. This led me to do some researching and reading, asking for known examples from the war about night bombing, and try to understand better what we should expect. I really just want something that seems plausible based on evidence from the period, and because I'm interested in playing both sides and keeping a balance for both sides I am not trying to advocate for either specifically.

From the evidence and examples I've seen, other posts and my own reading, I believe we shouldn't expect night bombing to hit any target precisely in a game in WW2 era. Various nations tried over several years in multiple theatres and none of them made a practice of precision night bombing, the best finding that they were not able to get within even five miles of their target consistently (British). They all went to area bombing as the only effective way to use bombing at night (British, German, US).

Thirdly, here is an example from my own Scen 1 game AAR of a massed night bombing in mid-42 by the Allies on a level 6 airfield. In this case 163 4E and 2E hit a level 6 field, shut it down and destroyed 36 fighters on the ground. Read down the page for more info and stuff about bombing in the war as well as actual stats of B-24 use in CBI and it's record against the Oscar. (In daylight).

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3348553

Fourthly, here is an example of CAP getting shredded at night. And another. And another. And another.

These are against non-NF as there are no NF in 42. To try to decrease effectiveness of the bombing I tried to sacrifice fighters to slow it down, but the losses are so staggering it's counter-productive. This is after adopting a 50 bomber per turn per target night-bombing HR. As you can see it still works quite well, and the ability of even a few planes to both destroy planes on the ground is certainly not 'barely able to get within 5 miles of the target' kind of accuracy and in the air the defensive fire is laughably strong, (especially since these fighters should be operating alone, should have trouble intercepting the bombers, and should be hard to see let alone hit on anything but the brightest, clearest nights).

If you have other sources or examples I'd love to read/see them. I really came into this with an open mind thinking maybe I just didn't know enough about the history here. I've come this far now thinking that night bombing is much more powerful that it should be in game. (I have more samples and I'm happy to run a test or two if anyone has any they think would work).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR August 29, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 16

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 8
B-24D Liberator x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 6 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
Port Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
Port Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 6



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed by flak

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 23



Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 6


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 3 destroyed
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground


Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged

Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 4


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 3 destroyed on ground


No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

< Message edited by obvert -- 8/24/2013 4:48:25 PM >


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 67
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 4:58:12 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Some of your B-25D1 and later version front-mounted strafing gun planes must have pilots that get quite a few kills. My fighters have been decimated by them quite a few times. They of course have almost double the defensive rating of a 4E and all guns seem to be used in the defensive calculation even though only two moveable MGs in one turret are on the plane.


I have 2 attack bomber pilots with 2 kills each. Then a bunch of guys with one kill. Not too surprising I have a lot of kills among the B29 pilots though. Thats due to night bombing being bonkers as we all know by now!

Just did a very quick count on the B29 pilots.
1 - 6 kills
4 - 5 Kills
7 - 4 kills
10 to 15 - 3 kills
30-50 with one or two kills


Warning: not a night-bombing post.

Japanese bombers don't carry guns! They believe 'the force' will get them to target safely. This is why not a single one of my non-fighter pilots has an A to A kill after 34 months of combat.

The Emily has a 26 point defensive gun rating in game you say, including a number of 20mm canons? I can't believe this. My pilots must have been flying the transport version exclusively in game. They're very aesthetically minded and wouldn't want to ruin the beautiful blue paint on that Corsair right over there.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 68
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 5:31:17 PM   
MDDgames

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2013
Status: offline
Well, Oscars isnt a plane that you should be sending against 4E bombers anyway. Its firepower is way too low to even make a dent in them. So honestly, that isnt a fair test. But run Tojos and Nicks against them and you will see nearly the same result.

B-17Ds are fairly easy to knock down, but the B-17E is nearly impossible. Or at least MUCH harder. And for the life of me I cant figure out why. Their stats are nearly identical (65 dur v 68) except gun rating (20 v 29). Only thing I can figure is that 4E bombers shoot FIRST before fighters have a chance to fire, and whatever survives gets their shots. And it would make sense to do it this way against aircraft equipped with 7.62mm guns. But NOT against 20mm+ armed aircraft.

And yes, the gun rating is way off base. The most a B-17 could bring to bear on any 1 target is 4 mgs. But the game gives every gun on the ship a shot.

< Message edited by MDDgames -- 8/24/2013 5:33:39 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 69
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 5:50:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

The common knowledge of the forum about 4e bombers mostly consists of a vocal group who complain endlessly about how OP 4e bombers are without anything more then anecdotes and feelings to back up their claims.

There are and have been endless threads about how OP 4e's are since AE's inception which don't pan out in the real game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's are better at sweeping enemy fighters then actual fighters are, doesn't happen in the game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can go in, unescorted against swarms of fighters and not suffer any losses doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can operate day after day after day without pause doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" about how OP 4e bombers are at naval attack doesn't actually happen in game. The common "knowledge" that the allies can operate huge swarms of 4e bombers from the start of the game doesn't actually happen, in game. The common "knowledge" of the forums refuses to acknowledge or accept that 4e bombers will suffer operational losses that dwarf their actual combat losses (said combat losses aren't mythical or insignificant either), or that replacement numbers are miniscule until toward the end of the war.

There seems to be a vocal subset of the forums who have some sort of collective groupthink about how OP 4e bombers are that bears little resemblance to actual gameplay results.

Which leaves me to question any sort of balance complaint brought up about 4e bombers. Is this thread about how OP night air 4e bombers are legitimate (it started out about night combat but seems to have morphed into a 4e bombers vs japan at night thread)? Or is it just another of the endless common "knowledge" threads about how unfair and OP and invincible 4e bombers are?

The fact that already there have been claims that the japanese 2e bombers obviously don't suffer from the over poweredness of the 4e's leads me to doubt the veracity of this complaint as well.

I wish more people would show statistically significant experimental results to back up their claims on these forums, instead of endless threads like this one with just more rhetoric and anecdotes. I want realism out of this game. The more realistic the better. I believe that's something we all should want. If 4e bombers are behaving unrealistically I want their behavior improved, even if that "improvement" is a negative change for the allies. An improvement of increased realism is an improvement to the game as a whole. But it's hard to find any sort of balanced viewpoint backed up by more then just feelings about 4 engine bombers on these forums.



(apologies if this post came off as hostile or nasty. bad day at work and I'm still all twitchy and out of sorts)


I'm back from the State Fair and catching up. Reading Obvert's posts and others makes me want to lash out and be mean, but I won't. This is a religious article of faith to JFBs who simply will not listen to any argument about opportunity costs and real costs to the Allies of any choices in bombing campaign mechanics.

What I WILL do, starting today, is begin a new section in my AAR dealing with night bombing. Every day I will post the full combat report results as I see them of EVERY night bombing attack in our game. Both sides. I will also comb the Operations report for any line which touches even tangentially on the topic and post it verbatim. I have asked Mike, my opponent, to consider doing the same thing in his AAR. I don't know if he will; he's pretty busy.

But I do have to post a few objective data in response to Pax Mondo's ridiculous claim that 2E bombing is "balanced" while 4E is not.

Betty: Durability 36, 2 x250 kg bombs
Sally: Durability 40, 4 x 250 kg bombs
B-26B: Durability 42, 3 x 500 lb bombs

B-17E: Durability 68, 8x500 lb bombs
B-29B: Durability 70, 36 x 500lb bombs

Now, in a sematic sense, he offers no definition of what "balanced" could mean in regards to the game. I don't know if he means "I get sad when the Allies have a plane that can carry more than 800% more bombs than my Sally can and thus can destroy a lot of stuff in one attack." I don't know if he means he thinks the devs put in some sort of hidden, magic escalator for planes with an "HB" label in the DB. But them the facts. The B-17E and the B-29B were just that good. The B-29 was the second most expensive weapons system of the war, of any combatant nation. It was designed to do just what it does in the game.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/24/2013 5:52:33 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 70
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 6:04:45 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

Well, Oscars isnt a plane that you should be sending against 4E bombers anyway. Its firepower is way too low to even make a dent in them. So honestly, that isnt a fair test. But run Tojos and Nicks against them and you will see nearly the same result.

B-17Ds are fairly easy to knock down, but the B-17E is nearly impossible. Or at least MUCH harder. And for the life of me I cant figure out why. Their stats are nearly identical (65 dur v 68) except gun rating (20 v 29). Only thing I can figure is that 4E bombers shoot FIRST before fighters have a chance to fire, and whatever survives gets their shots. And it would make sense to do it this way against aircraft equipped with 7.62mm guns. But NOT against 20mm+ armed aircraft.

And yes, the gun rating is way off base. The most a B-17 could bring to bear on any 1 target is 4 mgs. But the game gives every gun on the ship a shot.


Interesting. Oscars do suck, but why are so many being shot down at night? They shouldn't be in position to find the bombers, but something in game must be done to try to slow down the bombing, and the reason these were used (in game, not a test) is because they were the least valuable plane and I could afford to lose them!

As for Oscars not being able to take down 4Es, here is the record from the CBI of the B-24 vs Oscar in 43.

[These sections are from "B-24 Liberator Vs Ki-43 Oscar; China and Burma 1943" by Edward M. Young.]




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 8/24/2013 6:21:48 PM >


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to MDDgames)
Post #: 71
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 6:15:01 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

The common knowledge of the forum about 4e bombers mostly consists of a vocal group who complain endlessly about how OP 4e bombers are without anything more then anecdotes and feelings to back up their claims.

There are and have been endless threads about how OP 4e's are since AE's inception which don't pan out in the real game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's are better at sweeping enemy fighters then actual fighters are, doesn't happen in the game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can go in, unescorted against swarms of fighters and not suffer any losses doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can operate day after day after day without pause doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" about how OP 4e bombers are at naval attack doesn't actually happen in game. The common "knowledge" that the allies can operate huge swarms of 4e bombers from the start of the game doesn't actually happen, in game. The common "knowledge" of the forums refuses to acknowledge or accept that 4e bombers will suffer operational losses that dwarf their actual combat losses (said combat losses aren't mythical or insignificant either), or that replacement numbers are miniscule until toward the end of the war.

There seems to be a vocal subset of the forums who have some sort of collective groupthink about how OP 4e bombers are that bears little resemblance to actual gameplay results.

Which leaves me to question any sort of balance complaint brought up about 4e bombers. Is this thread about how OP night air 4e bombers are legitimate (it started out about night combat but seems to have morphed into a 4e bombers vs japan at night thread)? Or is it just another of the endless common "knowledge" threads about how unfair and OP and invincible 4e bombers are?

The fact that already there have been claims that the japanese 2e bombers obviously don't suffer from the over poweredness of the 4e's leads me to doubt the veracity of this complaint as well.

I wish more people would show statistically significant experimental results to back up their claims on these forums, instead of endless threads like this one with just more rhetoric and anecdotes. I want realism out of this game. The more realistic the better. I believe that's something we all should want. If 4e bombers are behaving unrealistically I want their behavior improved, even if that "improvement" is a negative change for the allies. An improvement of increased realism is an improvement to the game as a whole. But it's hard to find any sort of balanced viewpoint backed up by more then just feelings about 4 engine bombers on these forums.



(apologies if this post came off as hostile or nasty. bad day at work and I'm still all twitchy and out of sorts)


I'm back from the State Fair and catching up. Reading Obvert's posts and others makes me want to lash out and be mean, but I won't. This is a religious article of faith to JFBs who simply will not listen to any argument about opportunity costs and real costs to the Allies of any choices in bombing campaign mechanics.

What I WILL do, starting today, is begin a new section in my AAR dealing with night bombing. Every day I will post the full combat report results as I see them of EVERY night bombing attack in our game. Both sides. I will also comb the Operations report for any line which touches even tangentially on the topic and post it verbatim. I have asked Mike, my opponent, to consider doing the same thing in his AAR. I don't know if he will; he's pretty busy.

But I do have to post a few objective data in response to Pax Mondo's ridiculous claim that 2E bombing is "balanced" while 4E is not.

Betty: Durability 36, 2 x250 kg bombs
Sally: Durability 40, 4 x 250 kg bombs
B-26B: Durability 42, 3 x 500 lb bombs

B-17E: Durability 68, 8x500 lb bombs
B-29B: Durability 70, 36 x 500lb bombs

Now, in a sematic sense, he offers no definition of what "balanced" could mean in regards to the game. I don't know if he means "I get sad when the Allies have a plane that can carry more than 800% more bombs than my Sally can and thus can destroy a lot of stuff in one attack." I don't know if he means he thinks the devs put in some sort of hidden, magic escalator for planes with an "HB" label in the DB. But them the facts. The B-17E and the B-29B were just that good. The B-29 was the second most expensive weapons system of the war, of any combatant nation. It was designed to do just what it does in the game.


Firstly, maybe read the post you're so mad about before responding.

If you're referring to me as a JFB I would like you to discontinue the use of that term in reference to me. Please. As I mentioned in the above posts I do play both sides (Allies only against the AI in prep for a PBEM on that side as soon as one of my two current games is finished).

I'm not concerned with creating a better Japanese side only. That would be stupid since I plan to face that side soon, right?

Secondly, there is no discussion above about which plane is better. That is obviously any Allied bomber put up against an IJAAF 2e which are about the same as a long range Havoc. Not great.

The discussion is about night bombing itself, the ability of a bomber (any type, mind you) to hit a precise target at night vs evidence from the war to the contrary and the ability of the Allied planes (especially 4E but also some 2E) to hit any fighter, NF or not, at night and in large numbers. (Allied players don't have to worry about this because Japanese planes don't ever hit any Allied fighter with defensive fire!)

You are the one not supplying evidence for your arguments and diverting from the actual subject in a semi-religeous rhetorical adherence to your own agenda of having few to no HRs.

I would love it if you could take personality out of the discussion and deal with the evidence. So no AFB vs JFB comments. It's not about that. And you know it.


< Message edited by obvert -- 8/24/2013 6:17:38 PM >


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 72
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 8:32:53 PM   
MDDgames

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

Well, Oscars isnt a plane that you should be sending against 4E bombers anyway. Its firepower is way too low to even make a dent in them. So honestly, that isnt a fair test. But run Tojos and Nicks against them and you will see nearly the same result.

B-17Ds are fairly easy to knock down, but the B-17E is nearly impossible. Or at least MUCH harder. And for the life of me I cant figure out why. Their stats are nearly identical (65 dur v 68) except gun rating (20 v 29). Only thing I can figure is that 4E bombers shoot FIRST before fighters have a chance to fire, and whatever survives gets their shots. And it would make sense to do it this way against aircraft equipped with 7.62mm guns. But NOT against 20mm+ armed aircraft.

And yes, the gun rating is way off base. The most a B-17 could bring to bear on any 1 target is 4 mgs. But the game gives every gun on the ship a shot.


Interesting. Oscars do suck, but why are so many being shot down at night? They shouldn't be in position to find the bombers, but something in game must be done to try to slow down the bombing, and the reason these were used (in game, not a test) is because they were the least valuable plane and I could afford to lose them!

As for Oscars not being able to take down 4Es, here is the record from the CBI of the B-24 vs Oscar in 43.

[These sections are from "B-24 Liberator Vs Ki-43 Oscar; China and Burma 1943" by Edward M. Young.]



I was talking about in game terms, not the real war. And as far as personalities from that other guy. Thats why I green buttoned him. He clearly is an AFB with an agenda. I like you play both sides though more often Japanese. ;)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 73
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 8:53:18 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
I was talking about in game terms, not the real war. And as far as personalities from that other guy. Thats why I green buttoned him. He clearly is an AFB with an agenda.



And yet you can't resist speaking to me past the green button.

Coward.




_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to MDDgames)
Post #: 74
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 10:05:17 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

Well, Oscars isnt a plane that you should be sending against 4E bombers anyway. Its firepower is way too low to even make a dent in them. So honestly, that isnt a fair test. But run Tojos and Nicks against them and you will see nearly the same result.

B-17Ds are fairly easy to knock down, but the B-17E is nearly impossible. Or at least MUCH harder. And for the life of me I cant figure out why. Their stats are nearly identical (65 dur v 68) except gun rating (20 v 29). Only thing I can figure is that 4E bombers shoot FIRST before fighters have a chance to fire, and whatever survives gets their shots. And it would make sense to do it this way against aircraft equipped with 7.62mm guns. But NOT against 20mm+ armed aircraft.

And yes, the gun rating is way off base. The most a B-17 could bring to bear on any 1 target is 4 mgs. But the game gives every gun on the ship a shot.


Interesting. Oscars do suck, but why are so many being shot down at night? They shouldn't be in position to find the bombers, but something in game must be done to try to slow down the bombing, and the reason these were used (in game, not a test) is because they were the least valuable plane and I could afford to lose them!

As for Oscars not being able to take down 4Es, here is the record from the CBI of the B-24 vs Oscar in 43.

[These sections are from "B-24 Liberator Vs Ki-43 Oscar; China and Burma 1943" by Edward M. Young.]



I was talking about in game terms, not the real war. And as far as personalities from that other guy. Thats why I green buttoned him. He clearly is an AFB with an agenda. I like you play both sides though more often Japanese. ;)


Sorry to say I don't believe in the green button and I really do value the experience and knowledge of someone like Bullwinkle. He can be very vocal, very opinionated and quite erudite in his arguments, but if I don't know what he is saying I'm not either learning something from him or learning what I think is in opposition to it.

Discussion is the basis of every kind of learning or discovery. I value it incredibly, and even enjoy the process (in case you can't tell!)

So obviously I respect your choice and you should do what you think is necessary but I will never green button anyone on here. Especially not someone with the Bull's experience and generally humorous good nature. If we disagree we disagree. I'll say what I think, (over and over apparently!) and he will as well. Then one day I'll be in his neighborhood and I'l buy him a beer and we'll talk football.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to MDDgames)
Post #: 75
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/25/2013 12:41:02 AM   
PaxMondo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

But I do have to post a few objective data in response to Pax Mondo's ridiculous claim that 2E bombing is "balanced" while 4E is not.

Betty: Durability 36, 2 x250 kg bombs
Sally: Durability 40, 4 x 250 kg bombs
B-26B: Durability 42, 3 x 500 lb bombs

B-17E: Durability 68, 8x500 lb bombs


So, run your test with Sally/Helen *2 compared to B-17's ... or even test B-25 *2 vs B17 at night at 6000 ft in a sandbox. Same total bombload is what I am referring to.

I haven't tested since the last official patch, I've already admitted that. Obvert/Koniu/GJ/Francois AAR's indicate that nothing much has changed for night bombing. Not talking about day bombing here at all. I got no issues with 4E's in daylight. They are tough, the IJ is undergunned, all seems pretty much as it should be. This is only about night.

Now if you do your 4E night bombings, stay within normal range, use rest appropriately to keep your crew/ac fatigue under 10%, use an appropriate sized base for full bombload, and of course sufficient AV support. With those first two variables (range and rest) I could keep 4E night losses down to 1% per raid pretty easy (I used 5x20 planes as my test base IIRC). I had days in a row where I didn't lose a single bomber ... against opposition, and I was racking up kills like crazy. As far as I could tell, all of my losses were due to fatigue. Replays never showed any flak nor opposition hits.

Not trying to incite anything here. You have your opinion as you should. But don't think this is an AFB/JFB issue, it isn't. In the above AAR's I mention, at two of the allied players have the same opinion: they won't use 4E night bombing as it is gamey. Their statement from their AAR, not mine.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 76
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/25/2013 1:02:10 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

But I do have to post a few objective data in response to Pax Mondo's ridiculous claim that 2E bombing is "balanced" while 4E is not.

Betty: Durability 36, 2 x250 kg bombs
Sally: Durability 40, 4 x 250 kg bombs
B-26B: Durability 42, 3 x 500 lb bombs

B-17E: Durability 68, 8x500 lb bombs


So, run your test with Sally/Helen *2 compared to B-17's ... or even test B-25 *2 vs B17 at night at 6000 ft in a sandbox. Same total bombload is what I am referring to.

I haven't tested since the last official patch, I've already admitted that. Obvert/Koniu/GJ/Francois AAR's indicate that nothing much has changed for night bombing. Not talking about day bombing here at all. I got no issues with 4E's in daylight. They are tough, the IJ is undergunned, all seems pretty much as it should be. This is only about night.

Now if you do your 4E night bombings, stay within normal range, use rest appropriately to keep your crew/ac fatigue under 10%, use an appropriate sized base for full bombload, and of course sufficient AV support. With those first two variables (range and rest) I could keep 4E night losses down to 1% per raid pretty easy (I used 5x20 planes as my test base IIRC). I had days in a row where I didn't lose a single bomber ... against opposition, and I was racking up kills like crazy. As far as I could tell, all of my losses were due to fatigue. Replays never showed any flak nor opposition hits.

Not trying to incite anything here. You have your opinion as you should. But don't think this is an AFB/JFB issue, it isn't. In the above AAR's I mention, at two of the allied players have the same opinion: they won't use 4E night bombing as it is gamey. Their statement from their AAR, not mine.


I'm not going to post in this thread any more. Clearly we disagree.

I have begun posting all of my night bombing data every day in my AAR in its own section. We'll see what I can turn up.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 77
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/25/2013 4:23:49 AM   
jetjockey


Posts: 256
Joined: 11/23/2009
Status: offline
I have a suggestion for those interested in collecting data by testing; rather than comparing different aircraft during night bombing raids, compare the same aircraft bombing day vs. night. This will remove the variability of the capabilities of different aircraft; Allied aircraft tended to carry larger pay loads, larger bombs, and had better targeting instruments, especially from altitude. This way, if the night raids perform as well as (or better) than day raids we can be certain that night bombing is truly "Borked." If, however, night bombing reduces effectiveness, then we can begin a discussion of how much of a reduction is appropriate.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 78
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/25/2013 8:22:48 AM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jetjockey

I have a suggestion for those interested in collecting data by testing; rather than comparing different aircraft during night bombing raids, compare the same aircraft bombing day vs. night. This will remove the variability of the capabilities of different aircraft; Allied aircraft tended to carry larger pay loads, larger bombs, and had better targeting instruments, especially from altitude. This way, if the night raids perform as well as (or better) than day raids we can be certain that night bombing is truly "Borked." If, however, night bombing reduces effectiveness, then we can begin a discussion of how much of a reduction is appropriate.


This thread is not so much about bombing. It is about night air combat (air to air). Bombers are way too effective at shooting down intercepting fighters at night and seem to be firing just as accurately during the night as they are during the day. Meanwhile, the fighters intercepting them suffer a night time accuracy penalty. Seems like a correction needs to be applied to make the bombers' guns a bit less effective at night.

Edit: you are correct though about the need to control for aircraft type in any testing. But most of the guys on this forum are pretty well-versed in the scientific method and statistics, so I doubt they would overlook this.

< Message edited by Icedawg -- 8/25/2013 8:25:29 AM >

(in reply to jetjockey)
Post #: 79
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/25/2013 11:10:04 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Moose, obvert, pax, I respect all of you for your inquiring minds, your knowledge on the game, and your ability to logically conect RL data to game results.

Basically I agree with both sides of the coin. I am a fan of the hardcore path: no limits, everything goes. The fewer HRs the better. But I am also a fan of replaying history from a capabilities perspective. I am aware that this is not always possible, but in some situations a HR can help to support historical play.

Currently I lean towards HRs slightly limiting night bombing, simply because from a capabilities perspective (not neccessarily a results perspective) it closer reflects the historical cost-benefit balance of night ops. OTOH I love the everything goes path Bullwinkle follows in his PBEM, and fully I agree with his point regarding tradeoffs.

Both variants have their benefits and drawbacks, which one is more valid is a matter of personal taste and playstyle. I don´t think you will come to a consensus on this, since I do believe that both your POVs are true.


Interesting debate though, thank you gentlemen!

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Is night air combat broken? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.969