Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Conclusions? Here is mine.

I've said all along that ships in ports inWITP are like huge fat sows nested together in a big round target shape. Bombing,especially high level is too accurate, doubly so due to the damage model...no near misses, no non critical areas to hit. Ships are all spread all over the place and are often protected by torpedo nets, artificial moles, barrage balloons,camoflaged etc. Conversely, port hits are rarely scored in contrast to number of ships and multiple hits on ships.

Recommendation: cut bombing vs ships in port accuracy by 75% minimum. Increase chance for a port hit.

Not related to this thread but here goes. During development, it was decided to allow twin engine bombers and larger aircraft to torpedo ships in port (disbanded). I asked for this decision to be reversed because I know of not one single occurence of this happening during the war in any theatre (not talking roadsteads here,but ports). Nobody else could point one out after I challenged them to point out a single historical precedent. Yet it is still in. Pilots and bomber commanders knew that ports were too difficult an obstacle course to allow the long runs neccessary to launch from non 1E tactical bombers. granted,since there is no limit to port capacity for some unknown reason, I suppose it must be assumed that disbanding does not neccesarily mean tied up in a slip, stuck in a bay, resting in drydock, behind net defences,behind other ships etc. Many would be outside the main port in more vulnerable roadsteads. Do to this abstraction, some torp attacks could be allowed, but not at this extremely high probability. So,this being the case...

Recommendation: reduce the chance of 2E and 4E bombers using torps vs ships in ports by at least 75%.

Why is it so easy to A) damage a port and B) repair it? Further, considering we have no operational limit for ports, damage is almost meaningless.

Recommendation. Allow more port hits but have the hits do much less damage. Increase the repair time needed to repair ports. Perhaps limit/restrict disbandement in ports damaged beyond 50%. Limit/restrict docking beyond 75% damage. Maybe introduce an operations maximum for ports and have this effected by damage.

When targeting cities, ports, allow some chance for crossover hits as these facilities were not exactly seperated from each other by some invisible forcefield. In fact, they are basically the same thing, just a different side of the tracks.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

Raver, completely agree with the *numbers* but the problem is the effect, not the numbers.

You simply cannot get that number of aircraft lined up to bomb a bunch of ships. B-29's are just too big, even B-17's used in those numbers are fantasy. This is one of those cases where the numbers just don't give the truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
FRAG Totally dissagree. Nothing prevents the bombers from making individual runs.
The game give no defensive advantage for flying in "combat boxes" and formations,
so why do you want to have it penalize bombing accuracy as if all bomb releases were
"formation drops". If you want to hamstring their bombing, then give them the de-
fensive bonus for formation flying. But that would butcher even more Japanese in-
terceptors. Please pick one rationalization and stick to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron, the hex is 60 miles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron, the hex is 60 miles

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Mike,

I agree - single runs were done in reality and a 'formation only drops' rule is bad medicine.

Ron,

There are more consequences to increasing port size for disbandment, such as ship repair. I understand the benefits of what you propose but I suspect the effects are too sweeping to handle at this stage of development & implementation.



(psst. Mr. Frag, how big is a base hex again???)

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
FRAG Totally dissagree. Nothing prevents the bombers from making individual runs.
The game give no defensive advantage for flying in "combat boxes" and formations,
so why do you want to have it penalize bombing accuracy as if all bomb releases were
"formation drops". If you want to hamstring their bombing, then give them the de-
fensive bonus for formation flying. But that would butcher even more Japanese in-
terceptors. Please pick one rationalization and stick to it.

And how would you please calculate the losses B29 WOULD HAVE HAD would they have been used as single planes?

I´d say the box defensive bonuses are included in the durability (or whatever).
Your bomber fires with all his MG although in a box it wouldn´t have been possible because neighboring planes would have been hit etc.
(German pilots learned to target the cockpit from face to face and shot down large numbers of Allied heavies. I have never seen something like this in WITP.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


To answer pry and others, the abstract nature of ports was and is understood. But the abstract nature is one sided regarding attacks. If you ALLOW port torpedo attacks, then you had also better ADD traditional port torpedo defences like anti torpedo nets, barrage balloons, increased flak accuracy etc and ADD higher penalties to the attacking pilots.

quote:


Raise the bar on what size ports allow disbandment. It's size 3 now...go for size 6 or 7. What's the problem? With no capacity,a line needs to be drawn and size 3 is clearly too small as basically every ports can be made to allow didsbandment of thousands of ships.

Because it's abstracted and capacity means more than simply all ships are here at X, let's assume that some ships disbanded are in the actual port, some are waiting outside or are located at other lesser subsidiary ports in the area, while others are actually off map on other business (how else do we explain the massive supply and fuel increases every turn?.

quote:


If we assume this, not all ships in a port should be targetable at all due to abstraction. Due to abstraction, less shipping would be vulnerable to torps than to bombs, so lower the probability of torpedo loadouts accordingly and raise it for bombs.

Raising the threshold from three to 6,7,8 whatever can't be difficult and won't screw the AI as it already has restrictions to deal with size 2 down. Changing the targeting for ports might be a little work, having to randomly determine which ships are NOT THERE. Changing loadout probability can't be too difficult either.

Let's rock and be done with it.

quote:


And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


To answer pry and others, the abstract nature of ports was and is understood. But the abstract nature is one sided regarding attacks. If you ALLOW port torpedo attacks, then you had also better ADD traditional port torpedo defences like anti torpedo nets, barrage balloons, increased flak accuracy etc and ADD higher penalties to the attacking pilots.

Port defensive capabilities are not inherent to the port but to the units assigned to defend the port.

Port defenses or the equivalent there of are represented in the base force units, your flak is provided from them aided by any other LCU in the hex with AA capability, It is also up to the player to provide air protection for the hex if he is going to base all those ships in that hex.

Not to take away from the tests Leo has done but one very important thing is missing no defenses except those provided by the ships themselves and they are hobbled because they are docked and can not avoid being hit, his tests are like shooting fish in a barrel. Had he put in some base forces and LCU's for flak defense and some fighter cover his hit rate would diminish as would the number of aircraft actually dropping on the target.

I do think that B-29's should be limited to city attack missions only that will cure a part of this issue, B-24's and B-17's did drop on the ships in Simpson harbor on a regular basis and should not be exempted from port atacks.

quote:


Raise the bar on what size ports allow disbandment. It's size 3 now...go for size 6 or 7. What's the problem? With no capacity,a line needs to be drawn and size 3 is clearly too small as basically every ports can be made to allow didsbandment of thousands of ships.

Because it's abstracted and capacity means more than simply all ships are here at X, let's assume that some ships disbanded are in the actual port, some are waiting outside or are located at other lesser subsidiary ports in the area, while others are actually off map on other business (how else do we explain the massive supply and fuel increases every turn?.

Ron what do you actually accomplish here, due to geography every port is unique and most Islands in the Pacific do not even have a lagoon let along a functioning port but due to abstraction every island can have a port if it reaches size 3.

Luganville and Guadalcanal are prime examples neither has a lagoon let along a port and all cargo was unloaded over the beach yet once they reach size 3 due to abstraction they magically get protected anchorages and berths... and the protections from them that never existed. Once the size threshold is reached any location can magically become something the was never possible and it does not matter if it is size 3 or 6 the issue is still the same.

quote:


If we assume this, not all ships in a port should be targetable at all due to abstraction. Due to abstraction, less shipping would be vulnerable to torps than to bombs, so lower the probability of torpedo loadouts accordingly and raise it for bombs.

Raising the threshold from three to 6,7,8 whatever can't be difficult and won't screw the AI as it already has restrictions to deal with size 2 down. Changing the targeting for ports might be a little work, having to randomly determine which ships are NOT THERE. Changing loadout probability can't be too difficult either.

Let's rock and be done with it.

I did put forward the idea of protecting x numbers of ships based on each x size of the ports from air attack, mainly to keep you quite near the end of testing I would still be agreeable to that but will go against any attempt to make whole hexes torpedo free zones.

quote:


And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron the hexes really are 60 miles

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In the first PBEM game I played vs 2ndACR, I used port attacks with B-17s and IL-4s often during daylight (never at night) and received results that I thought were way out of whack. CLs Kinu and Kashima both blew up from mag explosions and innumerable merchants and lesser warships and auxilliaries were repeatedly pounded and sunk. Akagi took a hit from IL-4s with poor experience...even a blind bear finds a picnic basket sometimes.

This just seems too much despite all the cases for and against, the whys and why nots. Basically, the odds of whether a ship in port is targetted, and not the ordinance accuracy, could be tweaked down some. Be nice if a random modifier could be applied which exempted some ships from being targetted at all. We have this in surface combat (which makes little or no sense theway it works out during the combat...especially when all the seperate TFs in a hex are never "undetected". This is backwards to what it should be.). Because it is in surface combat, the same mechanics could be used for air attacks vs ports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In the first PBEM game I played vs 2ndACR, I used port attacks with B-17s and IL-4s often during daylight (never at night) and received results that I thought were way out of whack. CLs Kinu and Kashima both blew up from mag explosions and innumerable merchants and lesser warships and auxilliaries were repeatedly pounded and sunk. Akagi took a hit from IL-4s with poor experience...even a blind bear finds a picnic basket sometimes.

This just seems too much despite all the cases for and against, the whys and why nots. Basically, the odds of whether a ship in port is targetted, and not the ordinance accuracy, could be tweaked down some. Be nice if a random modifier could be applied which exempted some ships from being targetted at all. We have this in surface combat (which makes little or no sense theway it works out during the combat...especially when all the seperate TFs in a hex are never "undetected". This is backwards to what it should be.). Because it is in surface combat, the same mechanics could be used for air attacks vs ports.

Those raids took place at Pescadores with 8 AA units in it also. Flak is useless for defense in my opinion. I can pack a base with every AA unit Japan has and still the Allies will pound it into scrap. Yet let a air group attack 3 Allied CA's at sea and half your strike group will be butchered.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

The whole problem here is that most folks never grasped the abstract nature of "Ports" in the game, they always default their thinking and arguments to slips, berths cranes, warehouses and fancy dry-docks… obstructed approaches etc, then use this as a argument that torpedo attacks should not be allowed... Guess what folks none of that exists in our ports. All of these things are reflected in additional capabilities like repair yards, ship yards etc...

The port size ratings are simply a capability rating of how much cargo can pass thru it per turn and has nothing to do with what amenities are contained in the port.

Remember in game terms the "Port" and its benefits are also spread out over the whole 60 mile hex to include offshore anchorages as well as the port itself.

So when a port reaches size 3 you can now disband your ships into the "Port" making them immune to submarines and we have players using the tactic of hiding hundreds of ships in a "port" to defend them against submarines and now want them protected from air attack as well???? Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

The port hex is 60 miles, and no port in existence anywhere in the world even today is that big...., Players start hiding hundreds of ships in a 60 mile hex but want that whole 60 mile hex to be considered immune to attack because a tiny portion of the hex actually contains a real port... Come on...

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

Not to take away from the tests Leo has done but one very important thing is missing no defenses except those provided by the ships themselves and they are hobbled because they are docked and can not avoid being hit, his tests are like shooting fish in a barrel. Had he put in some base forces and LCU's for flak defense and some fighter cover his hit rate would diminish as would the number of aircraft actually dropping on the target.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

IMHO, the problem lies in fact that individual aircraft attack individual targets with individual bombs!

quote:

The trouble came on 24 July, when she was lying at anchor. It had taken the RAF a commendably short time to locate her. At noon that day several squadrons of Handley Page Halifaxes bombed from altitudes of 3.000 to 3.700 meters (10-12,000 feet). Five bombs hit the starboard side simultaneously in a nearly straight line parallel to the centerline. Two bombs were of the 227 kg (500 lb) high-explosive type, the others were 454 kg (1000 lb) semi-armor-piercing type bombs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Here is a link to an excellent overview of the RAFs attempts to bomb Scharnhorst and Gneisenau while they at Brest. The attacks spanned the period 3/22/41 to 2/11/42, and had small success for the effort expended. In WitP, they would have been nailed by that first 100-plane raid on 3/30/41....

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

Damn you... damn you...

Ever since I started this therad I am trying to find some nice WWW link about British attampts on German ships in French ports (namely Brest) and now you overtook me... shame on you...

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Damn you... damn you...

Ever since I started this therad I am trying to find some nice WWW link about British attampts on German ships in French ports (namely Brest) and now you overtook me... shame on you...

You gotta love Google: "air raid Brest Scharnhorst". Course it only works if you can spell

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

On the night of 30 March, 100 RAF aircraft flew over the port and dropped their bombs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau escaped unharmed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

(My Bold for emphasis)

quote:

On the night of 30 March, 100 RAF aircraft flew over the port and dropped their bombs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau escaped unharmed.

Please keep in mind the raid mentioned used night attacks. This shouldn't be a direct comparison to the results of a daylight raid. I am in the middle of reading the excellent article now, but it seems that the 100 plane raid had a reason byond accuracy for missing the ships.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

WITP results would have been a whack of hits on both S and G.

quote:

I do think that B-29's should be limited to city attack missions only

quote:

90 x 1000 yards = 90,000 yards or a line of bombers 45 MILES long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

quote:

WITP results would have been a whack of hits on both S and G.

Correct, but aren't night attacks in WiTP fubar'd currently? No sense in picking apart its flaws as well.