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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 6/11/2003 4:13:21 AM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

Well, but with the Japanese industry being so weak, they could not even produce the special armor that the tiger or the Panther used, much less could they produce the 75mmL/71nor the 88mmL/50 with the industry they had unless they decided to improve their industry. (Which of course would have taken at the very least a couple of years). But if given enough time and enough thought, it could have been possible, just not in 42 or 43, but maybe, juuuuuust mayyyybe late45~46? Who knows, we could argue about what country having this or that, but, I think that the best thing to do is to have a system which allows a player to choose his production (WITHIN REASON). The reason I say this is because war is fluid. Both sides continuously learned lessons and improved upon them, it was a question of who decided to put more money into the lessons that they learned in war. (More AA guns on ships instead of large caliber guns, radar, so on and so on). So would it not be best to allow the player play in a fluid environment where he could make the decisions (TO A CERTAIN EXTENT) and perhaps make a small decision which may change the outcome of a battle? (I.e. Japanese building submachineguns or semi-automatic rifles). Had the timeperiod of the game been less than 2~3years, I would not argue with being able to change/control production (Can't do much in such a short amount of time). But because this game focuses on a long time period, people should be able to control production.

The reason I say this is, if by some miracle, one could bomb Japan significantly in the early years of the war, production would be altered, Air defence would be improved, but most importantly of all production and R&D efforts would be delayed (small but noticeable differences. This is what HOI (hearts of Iron) did so well. Would it be realistic to have a preset schedule that the game follows when a country's production centers are being pounded? After all hurting a country's industry does hurt production and any schedules that may have been set before.

Personally, this is the reason for my support of a controllable production system. By having a pre-set production system, it would take away the fluid reality of war, and make it a more static game in which you could simply allow your production centers to be dusted off the face of the map and still get your 20 Zeros a week ( or what ever the number may be), or get your ships when your shipyards have been torn into pieces, etc, etc.

Just my .02c

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 31

Production - 6/11/2003 4:32:16 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, All production (aircraft, ships, equipment) have points of origin.
(Factories, shipyards, resource/oil/manpower)
If you bomb these you will impact production.

A ship under construction advances via expending construction points produced by the shipyards and other industry. If none are produced the ship does not move towards completion.
If there are no engines aircraft do not get built.

The set production schedule is still subject to events. (less damage more resources they will finish sooner. More damage less resource they will finish slower.

The AI will not stop producing Oscars to build more Zeros but a human could order this change. It will result in a period of no or low production while the factory changes.

I'm uncertain if any unit/ship can be introduced that was not built or under construction in the actual war. But the production system is just now being integrated into the alpha version.

However, I do not look for changes in production to bring victory when planning the Japanese. I'd like it to make a few changes for specific areas (ASW and support ships (subtender, destroyer tender, ammunition, repair) I don't think I would try for more carriers. (But I'd build the historical ones)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 32

- 6/11/2003 5:14:00 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

The thing with flexibility of production, is that the more you allow, the more modelling of things outside the 'pure wargame' that you need. If you stick to historical production, you run the risk of not supporting the needs of the war. To use the example above, heavy bombing of the homeland, not resulting in an increase in AA, and heavy bomber destroyers.
If you allow typical 'wargamer' production, you get the player wanting to build nothing but the best fighter, or bomber, or whatever, based on knowledge of game stats, history or both. In reality, it did not happen. Why? Well, obviously, RL production directors don't have luxury of stats, so they don't know that the P4F has a manoevre of 34, which is one better than the Spiteful Mk 4.5, so they should build more of them. But more importantly, no one person (even in Germany) had full control of production. Even Speer, or the USSR, had constraints. UK aircraft production is a case in point. Spitfire better than Hurricane? But Hurri was in prod til 1943 (at least, Sea Hurri, 1944 IIRC). I know it changed role, but there were better aircraft for ground attack by 1943. Lancaster was the best British heavy bomber. Halifax was in prod til the end of the war. Need I go on? And why was this? Because there were constraints on changing production - both physical (tooling etc), and political/human (company jealousy, inter service rivalry etc).
I suggest that until you include all these constraints (or simulations of them), the production system has to be held on the inflexible side, if you want a reasonably realistic game.

Final question (relative to the Oscar/Zero question earlier. What do you think would have happened if the Emperor (or someone) had ordered the IJA to adopt the Zero, and licence it to Nakajima? I don't know, but my guess is that an army special version (probably inferior, maybe a different engine, or armament or something) produced late, would stagger in to limited service, and get a bad press in the army bosses. Maybe I am a pessimist on human nature, but thats my 2p.
Look at how many countries post war adopted what is often described as the best all round tank of the war (Panther). Or even a development of it. Remarkably few. France briefly IIRC, maybe a few others. No one put it in production for long, if at all. T34 was more successful, but only because USSR cloned client state armies.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 33

- 6/11/2003 11:09:37 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by HMASWarspite
[QUOTE]I suggest that until you include all these constraints (or simulations of them), the production system has to be held on the inflexible side, if you want a reasonably realistic game.[/QUOTE]

If the current alpha is an indication of the final product, there will be substantial penalties for changing production from one aircraft type to another. Switching from one type to another is a costly and time consuming process and wouldn't be done on a whim.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 34

Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/11/2003 2:26:19 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]The only snag with assumptions like that is you totally ignore the reality of Japanese procurement and interservice rivalry. IIRC, the IJN and IJA didn't only have completely separate specification and procurement teams and policies, they tended to keep suppliers more or less tied to one service (Mitsubishi, IJN, Nakajima IJA for example). If you change this, or allow it to be ignored, you ignore one of the key constraints in the Japanese war capabilty. IMHO it is in the same league as allowing formation on the USAF in 1940 - just wasn't going to happen. If you ignore these issues, might as well allow Japan to be democracy, and not be prone to hopeless last stands! (I.E. it isn't then Japan!) [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, you are right, and I know all this. The two services
couldn't even agree on a common electrical voltage. But we
were in a "what if" discussion---and it is certainly more within
the realms of possibility (not probability) that the Army, recogni-
zing the inadequacies of their own designs and the need for
an immediate improvement, could adopt an "Army Version" of
some of the more successful Naval designs. Makes more sense
than Japanese industry being able to crank out a BB in two years ond/or some of the other suggestions floating around. My point
was that even the "variants" should be held within the realms
of the physically possible.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 35

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/11/2003 5:57:49 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Jap CV can be destroyed. B-17 cant be shot down unless you are REAL lucky. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well I would suggest that you read the current AAR that Luskan and I have running. Luskan has done very good job in blunting my LRB attacks against Lugna with his Zeros. I would not call Luskan lucky, more like good planning and tactics.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 36

- 6/11/2003 9:41:44 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]The thing with flexibility of production, is that the more you allow, the more modelling of things outside the 'pure wargame' that you need. If you stick to historical production, you run the risk of not supporting the needs of the war. To use the example above, heavy bombing of the homeland, not resulting in an increase in AA, and heavy bomber destroyers.
If you allow typical 'wargamer' production, you get the player wanting to build nothing but the best fighter, or bomber, or whatever, based on knowledge of game stats, history or both. In reality, it did not happen. Why? Well, obviously, RL production directors don't have luxury of stats, so they don't know that the P4F has a manoevre of 34, which is one better than the Spiteful Mk 4.5, so they should build more of them. But more importantly, no one person (even in Germany) had full control of production. Even Speer, or the USSR, had constraints. UK aircraft production is a case in point. Spitfire better than Hurricane? But Hurri was in prod til 1943 (at least, Sea Hurri, 1944 IIRC). I know it changed role, but there were better aircraft for ground attack by 1943. Lancaster was the best British heavy bomber. Halifax was in prod til the end of the war. Need I go on? And why was this? Because there were constraints on changing production - both physical (tooling etc), and political/human (company jealousy, inter service rivalry etc).
I suggest that until you include all these constraints (or simulations of them), the production system has to be held on the inflexible side, if you want a reasonably realistic game.

Final question (relative to the Oscar/Zero question earlier. What do you think would have happened if the Emperor (or someone) had ordered the IJA to adopt the Zero, and licence it to Nakajima? I don't know, but my guess is that an army special version (probably inferior, maybe a different engine, or armament or something) produced late, would stagger in to limited service, and get a bad press in the army bosses. Maybe I am a pessimist on human nature, but thats my 2p.
Look at how many countries post war adopted what is often described as the best all round tank of the war (Panther). Or even a development of it. Remarkably few. France briefly IIRC, maybe a few others. No one put it in production for long, if at all. T34 was more successful, but only because USSR cloned client state armies. [/B][/QUOTE]

That was the point I was trying to get across - you did a much better job. We have too much hindsight/knowledge (i.e. stats) and are able to make much better informed decisions and too much absolute power (i.e. no political consequences).

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 37

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/12/2003 1:40:11 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]Well I would suggest that you read the current AAR that Luskan and I have running. Luskan has done very good job in blunting my LRB attacks against Lugna with his Zeros. I would not call Luskan lucky, more like good planning and tactics. [/B][/QUOTE]

In the AAR I posted I intercepted 9 B-17 with 55 planes
at ZERO distance and with fatigue less than 10

Good Planning and tactics (whatever that means to you)
would NOT have given anyone a better chance.
No B-17 were lost.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 38

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/12/2003 1:57:48 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]In the AAR I posted I intercepted 9 B-17 with 55 planes
at ZERO distance and with fatigue less than 10

Good Planning and tactics (whatever that means to you)
would NOT have given anyone a better chance.
No B-17 were lost. [/B][/QUOTE]

Enough with the shameless plug for you opinion on the B-17.

We all know your opinion, no need to post it on every thread in the forum.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 39

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/12/2003 2:51:57 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]Enough with the shameless plug for you opinion on the B-17.

We all know your opinion, no need to post it on every thread in the forum. [/B][/QUOTE]

Tell the people that I am replying to that they can stop challenging me on every thread. Until then I will defend my position =)

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 40

WITP Testing - 6/12/2003 3:14:21 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, These are WITP results not UV. The B-17 groups do not exist in this size or type of aircraft on 05.01.42 I used the editor. The purpose is to conduct tests using various Japanese fighters.
(The KAIc was placed before I realized it is a night fighter and does not fly CAP during the day. I'm going to run a night bombing mission for it.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36 (exp as is but I raised morale to 99)(mid to high 80's exp)

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 102 (exp low but morale 99)

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 damaged
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 26 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 10

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 85

Attacking Level Bombers:
14 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
8 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

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

Lunga has no AA defense. All B-17 loses will be from enemy fighters.

Results
1 zero lost (The Nick does not count it was not engaged)
4 B-17E lost (1 shot down 3 while returning)

more to follow.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 51 (2x36ac 75exp 99 morale)

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 105 (3x36ac 2x64 exp 1x45 exp all 99 morale)

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 4 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 38 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 10

Airbase hits 30
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 91

Attacking Level Bombers:
18 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
9 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
17 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

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

results no Tony lost

5xB-17 lost in air to air
1 lost operations

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/02/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 40

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 51

no losses

no losses

Airbase hits 12
Runway hits 34

Attacking Level Bombers:
10 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
14 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

night combat needs work. no loses

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 41

- 6/12/2003 3:55:29 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Results appear as i would have expected given past experiences

I'd say (again) that the "problem" is not in the loss column where it comes to B-17's but in the lack-a-daisy impact of disruption on their bombing runs. Even with 38+ hits on the bomber groups, nothing seems to prevent that pinpoint accuracy. (Not counting the morale break rule of course.)

Almost reminds me of that math(Random) problem revealed in USAAF where only the first 2-3 BG's of any given raid were ever "selected" as an attacking JG/KG's target. (the BG's determined by their computer ID) Those first several BG's suffered terrible disruption and losses but left the other BG's unaffected save by flak allowing for far better bombing results on a consistant basis. On the next turn you could examine your BG's and sure enough, the first couple to several BG's would look like swiss cheese but the other BG's all would be in good shape in terms of numbers and morale.

I wonder if what were seeing here and in UV is multiple "hits" being expended on only a very small # of the "bombers" leaving the rest free of non-flak caused disruption. The 17's DUR rating is certainly high enough to absorb numerous hits

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 42

Hits - 6/12/2003 4:28:06 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Remember 38 aircraft damaged does not mean 38 different aircarft hit only that the fighters claim to have hit B-17's 38 times.
In fact the 38 hits could be what caused the 5 air combat loses.

The question from an operantional point of view is what would normally be the result of 2 groups of 36 Tony versus 3 groups of 36 B-17 in clear weather, with all aircraft morale of 99 and under 20 fatigue. Would the fighters turn back the bombers. How many 100 plane strikes did the Luftwaffe abort? How many did the Japanese abort? What was the average result of 100 B-17 attacks on airfields? (German or Japanese)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 43

- 6/12/2003 4:46:39 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Right. I wasn't assuming that the 38 hits were on 38 different B-17's, but i was wondering if the math that governs "which" B-17's are being hit might be consistantly assigning those "hits" to a very small number of "bombers", based on the sequencial integer assigned to it or from however other method the code uses to distinquish indiv weapons systems.

Moot in a way i suppose. In general the game treats base hexes as a very small virtual area allowing bombers with generous loadouts (like the B-17) to litterally saturate a base with hits.....from anchored ships to port installations to airfields, all at once. Remember that AAR i posted circa 1945 where the US has available very large numbers of heavy bombers?

Sticking to your test though, let me suggest this, re run your 100 plane bombing run and this time ground the fighters. Lets see if there's any substantial (if any) difference in the hit scores for the bombers. That might give us some answers regarding the effects of disruption.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 44

results - 6/12/2003 5:04:26 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 104

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 29
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 114

Attacking Level Bombers:
20 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

19 2 85 hits versus the Zeros
30 1 91 versus the Tony
29 2 114 versus undefended

So the fighters are having an effect.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 45

Re: results - 6/12/2003 5:06:39 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 104

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 29
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 114

Attacking Level Bombers:
20 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

19 2 85 hits versus the Zeros
30 1 91 versus the Tony
29 2 114 versus undefended

So the fighters are having an effect. [/B][/QUOTE]

However if the production of B-17 is so high that a loss of 5
is simply shrugged off....it dont mean a thing.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 46

Re: results - 6/12/2003 5:15:55 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[

19 2 85 hits versus the Zeros
30 1 91 versus the Tony
29 2 114 versus undefended

So the fighters are having an effect. [/B][/QUOTE]

not very much of one though. Kinda as i figured. I would suggest (since i'm at work :p ) that you run it a few more times both ways, with fighters defending, with fighters grounded but i suspect the results will be more of the same.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 47

Re: Re: results - 6/12/2003 5:19:58 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]not very much of one though. Kinda as i figured. I would suggest (since i'm at work :p ) that you run it a few more times both ways, with fighters defending, with fighters grounded but i suspect the results will be more of the same. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not very much??? 114 compared to 85 and 91 (the difference is equal to the unopposed night attack by 50 bombers.)

The fighters made a 20 percent reduction in hits. Check this result out.

85 (25.4 percent less)
91 (20.1 percent less)
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 48

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 102

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 1 destroyed
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 14 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 26 damaged

Airbase hits 15
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 73 (27.8 percent less then unopposed)

The Oscar II's seemed to have a large impact on accuracy while causing the least amount of damage ( 2 Osacar II and 1 B-17 LOST)

All tests are 2 Japanese fighter groups of 36 AC each (72) versus 3 B-17 groups of 36 AC each (108). The fighter groups are set to 90 percent CAP. (I don't know why the numbers differ from turn to turn)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97 (unopposed)

Japanese aircraft

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 102

Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 68

Attacking Level Bombers:
20 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
8 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
9 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
12 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

How much are the different hits worth? (Is one airbase hit the same as 1 runway hit?)

How many hits would 100 percent hits be?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 48

- 6/12/2003 5:39:10 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

perhaps i should rephrase that to say "not much of an impact" at least when combined with the issue of high level consistancy in terms of hits scored on the base. 91 hits or 114......wont mean much difference on the ground unless you've got 10 seebee units stacked on the base hex.

It looks like the engine has little room for more variable results when raids are heavily contested, giving players instead a gentle statistical curb based on the # of hits scored on the bombers. It would be nice if a large and experienced counter-attack could more greatly break up/disrupt raids resulting in large % of missed or waylaid bombing runs.

Granted, these tests are bereft of the morale failure rule which would reduce the # of bombers, but with high DUR units it takes alot of hits and/or a ridiculous amount of defending fighters to produce that even in the absence of escorts.

thanks for taking the time to accomidate my curiosity. Think i'll run a few tests myself to test this variability.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 49

Impact - 6/12/2003 5:44:29 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]perhaps i should rephrase that to say "not much of an impact" at least when combined with the issue of high level consistancy in terms of hits scored on the base. 91 hits or 114......wont mean much difference on the ground unless you've got 10 seebee units stacked on the base hex.

It looks like the engine has little room for more variable results when raids are heavily contested, giving players instead a gentle statistical curb based on the # of hits scored on the bombers. It would be nice if a large and experienced counter-attack could more greatly break up/disrupt raids resulting in large % of missed or waylaid bombing runs.

Granted, these tests are bereft of the morale failure rule which would reduce the # of bombers, but with high DUR units it takes alot of hits and/or a ridiculous amount of defending fighters to produce that even in the absence of escorts.

thanks for taking the time to accomidate my curiosity. Think i'll run a few tests myself to test this variability. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, the difference is enough that the US player would have to make 4 attacks versus fighters to match what 3 attacks unopposed could do. (Making it worth while to defend the base.
Hoping for weather to abort a mission or two. It's not pretty for the Japanese but it does show the fighters have a postive impact. I don't believe the Japanese ever turned back 100 B-17's with fighters. As for producing them (by altering the production)
I think people will be surprised and dismayed by the results of trying to build nothing but B-17. The medium bombers still play a vital role in the conduct of the war.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 50

- 6/12/2003 5:50:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Yes indeed, but thats a whole different kettle of fish (the medium bombers) They are and have been the problem all along much more so than B-17's and 24's which attract so much attention. I agree, stopping a 100 plane raid of these big bombers would be very difficult though i think the answer there lies largely not in the air to air results but with the other issue i've been mentioning. I'd still like to see a potential greater impact on those unescorted raids in terms of disruption effects. If the bombers have even better exp, the impact on their acc might be that much less again raising the question, what point escorts?

The medium bombers being able to act like heavies though.....thats more serious. heh , perhaps players will decide only to focus on medium bombers....we can call the scenerio, "Mitchell's dream" ;)

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 51

rats - 6/12/2003 6:05:53 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
J7W Shinden x 42

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
J7W Shinden x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 8 damaged

Airbase hits 28
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 122

Attacking Level Bombers:
27 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
12 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yikes, maybe they do better against fighters. I thought they would slaughter the bombers.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 52

George - 6/12/2003 6:18:31 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 48

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 104

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George x 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 6 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 20 damaged

PO2 M.Inano of 144th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2

Airbase hits 22
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 80

Attacking Level Bombers:
25 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
10 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
9 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
12 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 9000 feet

The George by far so far

The 1 George was destroyed on the ground 9 B-17's were lost via air to air (0 op)(AC that crash on way back due to damage from air combatare listed as air to air. AC that crash because of weather or mishap or AA are Op)

The are 3 B-17 groups 1 lost 5 B-17 (morale down to 55) another lost 4 (morale down to 72) The third group lost 0 (3 damaged)(morale 84)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 48

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 106

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 8 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 11 damaged

PO2 A.Ohara of 144th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2

Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 65

Attacking Level Bombers:
26 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
19 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
15 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
5 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
15 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
1 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
5 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm medium bombers do achive heavy bomber results.
9 lost air to air 1 lost OP (no Japanese AC lost)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 53

- 6/12/2003 7:43:45 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

George is fairly late war. Lets see something from 42.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 54

ratio - 6/12/2003 7:55:35 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 66

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George x 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 27 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 15 damaged

PO2 H.Kawakubo of 5th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 4

Airbase hits 20
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 79

Attacking Level Bombers:
6 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
12 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
14 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
5 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
7 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
6 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
9 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
9 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow I added 1 more group of fighters.

23 bombers shot down 0 Op lost no fighters lost. Prehaps there is a threshold as far as ratio that has to be achived to produce good results. (23 out of 108 is pretty good from a Japanese point of view)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 96

Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
A5M4 Claude x 5 destroyed
A5M4 Claude x 23 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress x 7 damaged

FO J.Kramer of 5th BG is credited with kill number 2

Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 52

Attacking Level Bombers:
27 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
20 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
9 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it's not just numbers

4 Claude shot down 1 OP
1 B-17 OP (But that's not the best bombing result so far)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 55

Re: ratio - 6/12/2003 8:23:05 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 66

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George x 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 27 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 15 damaged

PO2 H.Kawakubo of 5th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 4

Airbase hits 20
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 79

Attacking Level Bombers:
6 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
12 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
14 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
5 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
7 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
6 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
9 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
9 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow I added 1 more group of fighters.

23 bombers shot down 0 Op lost no fighters lost. Prehaps there is a threshold as far as ratio that has to be achived to produce good results. (23 out of 108 is pretty good from a Japanese point of view)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 96

Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
A5M4 Claude x 5 destroyed
A5M4 Claude x 23 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress x 7 damaged

FO J.Kramer of 5th BG is credited with kill number 2

Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 52

Attacking Level Bombers:
27 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
20 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
9 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
5 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it's not just numbers

4 Claude shot down 1 OP
1 B-17 OP (But that's not the best bombing result so far) [/B][/QUOTE]

This is news =) What exactly are we calling a 'George'
The 'George' I am familiar with was not introduced in any numbers until 1944.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 56

- 6/12/2003 8:52:21 AM

Aussie

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline

[I]This is news =) What exactly are we calling a 'George'[/I]

Good question - the N1k1-J prototype first flew in Dec 42. Maybe put those Shidens up against the B-17s instead of the Claudes and see how much better they do. :)

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 57

test - 6/12/2003 8:57:44 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 96

Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 23 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress x 2 destroyed
B-17C Fortress x 25 damaged

Airbase hits 18
Runway hits 73

Attacking Level Bombers:
26 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
15 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
20 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
11 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
6 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
4 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet
3 x B-17C Fortress at 9000 feet

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

1 zero air to air 2 OP (there are 8 damaged)
3 B-17 air to air 0 OP (ready ac group 1 20, gp2 22 gp 3 21)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 58

Shindens - 6/12/2003 9:00:04 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aussie
[B][I]This is news =) What exactly are we calling a 'George'[/I]

Good question - the N1k1-J prototype first flew in Dec 42. Maybe put those Shidens up against the B-17s instead of the Claudes and see how much better they do. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi If you go back to the begining of the test and start there you'll see the Shindens did lousey.
Prehaps it's an altitude thing?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 59

Re: rats - 6/12/2003 9:18:14 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Japanese aircraft
J7W Shinden x 42

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
J7W Shinden x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 8 damaged

Airbase hits 28
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 122
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yikes, maybe they do better against fighters. I thought they would slaughter the bombers. [/B][/QUOTE]

The Shinden was specifically designed to be a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor and go after the B-29s. I would expect it to do the best of all the Japanese planes against unescorted bombers. Those results are down right depressing. Hopefully more tweaking will be done.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 60