Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

User avatar
HannoMeier
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

Post by HannoMeier »

Hi all,

first: I love UV. My most intense gaming experience for a long time. Because of my general enjoyment, I would like to point out 2 still remaining major weaknesses in the game (V.220)

1. US Level bomer accuracy (and invulnerability):

As the optimal height for US level bombers is 6000 feet (no Norden bomsight adjustment), my honorable opponent, Dan always come in from this hight. From my experience, if his bombers fly in, they could not be stopped in Air2Air (this should be further examined). The more important point is: Every bomber throws 3 bombs (3 splashes per bomber) and more than every 2nd bomber hits a ship. In this combat report, my ships were unloading, but the bombers are nearly as effective attacking ships at sea. The combination unstoppable and precisely hitting is too frustrating.

2. Hitting own mines:

During my ownership I mined Irau (San Christobal) extensively. When Dan invaded it, several of his Warships and Transports hit mines. He captured it in 2 days. On the 3rd day (base is now US) my bombardment TF arrived and mines hit about 10 times (including 3 mines on my BB Mutsu). They program had to simulate that this we MY own (completely mapped) defensive minefields!!! He had mines there, too, but I only hit my OWN mines. Also the Bombardment TF should have stayed away from the coast to bombard. (I read defensive mines are laid near the coats).


Matrix and all interested see yourself, please look at the attached Combat Save or the Combat report:

A little frustrated UV junkie. The game is otherwise nearly perfect.

Hanno
Bax
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 8:42 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Post by Bax »

I agree about the B-17 accuracy, Hanno. It's slightly too accurate IMO. While I wouldn't condone a huge change, it would be an improvement if Matrix would adjust the B-17 accuracy down a bit.
User avatar
HannoMeier
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Post by HannoMeier »

The attachments didn't came through. Or am I not allowed to post zip's with the Combat Save? Here is an excerpt from the actual combat report:

Nearly all bombers get through the CAP and about 50 bombers scored 28 bomb hits on the AP TF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M2 Zero x 9
A6M3 Zero x 7
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 20

Allied aircraft
Hudson x 3
P-38G Lightning x 23
B-25D Mitchell x 6
B-26B Marauder x 12
B-17E Fortress x 24
B-24D Liberator x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe x 1 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 1 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 3 damaged
B-26B Marauder x 2 damaged
B-17E Fortress x 2 damaged

1LT G. Gardner of 9th FS is credited with kill number 2

Japanese Ships
AP Katsuragisan Maru, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kaisho Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Kano Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Hokuyo Maru, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP Iwaki Maru, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kanayamasan Maru
AP Kaiko Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Horaisan Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 318
Guns lost 5

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x Hudson at 6000 feet
4 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
1 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 6000 feet
2 x B-25D Mitchell at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

Re: Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

Post by dpstafford »

Originally posted by Hanno Meier
first: I love UV. My most intense gaming experience for a long time. Because of my general enjoyment, I would like to point out 2 still remaining major weaknesses in the game (V.220)

1. US Level bomer accuracy (and invulnerability):

2. Hitting own mines:

So, this is why I didn't get another move back from you yesterday. Are we officially on hold again??

Also, you probably should have mentioned the way-too-deadly strafing problem that we have banned by house rule.
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

Post by Admiral DadMan »

Ok, ships were docked unloading, and you got hit by a strike

38 Interceptors.
v.
23 P38's
51 LB's

Dumb Question:

Did you factor in Experience and Morale on both sides?

Allied total strike force outnumbers defenders 2:1 and unless Sakai is flying them all, I don't see how you stop this strike. If the ships were undocked, a few less hits would be reasonable.

Looks like IJN gave as well as it got in the air battle. What I don't see enough of is low experience attack groups being disrupted in the face of strong fighter CAP.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
Reiryc
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am

Re: Re: Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

Post by Reiryc »

Originally posted by dpstafford
So, this is why I didn't get another move back from you yesterday. Are we officially on hold again??

Also, you probably should have mentioned to way-too-deadly strafing problem that we have banned by house rule.


You posted this kind of accusation on a public forum why?

Reiryc
Image
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

Re: Re: Re: Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

Post by dpstafford »

Originally posted by Reiryc
You posted this kind of accusation on a public forum why?

What accusation are you referring to?????
User avatar
HannoMeier
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Post by HannoMeier »

No problem Reiryc. This was a joke. An original Stafford :-)

He made a nice invasion 2 turns ago. So its time to get back at the Allies

Yes, I was "irritated" by the turn results, but the game goes on. Another turn tonight.

Regards, Hanno
NorthStar
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 3:53 am
Location: New York, US

Post by NorthStar »

Just out of curiosity:

12x Marauders with 6 bombs each
6x Mitchells with 6 bombs each
24x B-17 with 12 bombs each
9x B-24 with 16 bombs each

That's 540(?!) bombs falling, of which you got 27 hits, or 5% (exactly!!) hit rate. Is that really all that high?
Bax
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 8:42 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Post by Bax »

If I remember correctly, from reading many books on the early part of the war, the B-17's were woefully inaccurate in their bombing. They got lucky and managed to score a few hits here and there, but nothing like the accuracy demonstrated against shipping, docked or undocked, in UV.
User avatar
Grumbling Grogn
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
Location: Texas!
Contact:

Historical?

Post by Grumbling Grogn »

Originally posted by Bax
If I remember correctly, from reading many books on the early part of the war, the B-17's were woefully inaccurate in their bombing. They got lucky and managed to score a few hits here and there, but nothing like the accuracy demonstrated against shipping, docked or undocked, in UV.


Yes...

But keep in mind that AFAIK bombing runs during daylight at 6,000 feet altitude did not occur during this time period very much (at all?) :)

And even if UV was an absolutely perfect simulation of everything in the South Pacific during this time period, IMHO we would still never get exactly historical results when we play because as soon as we fire up the game engine and start moving units we alter history with our plans/strategies.

We all know that bombing ships from 20,000 feet is almost totally worthless (or we figure it out after only a few tries). The USAAF however thought this was a great idea until experience (and the men at the sharp end of the stick) proved them wrong.

Now, I have no idea if these hit rates are too high for US air units, during this time period using this strategy . But, we simply can not compare what happened in reality (at 20,000 feet) to what we do in the game under different conditions (at 6,000).

As always, just my two cents.
The Grumbling Grognard
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

bomber altitudes

Post by mogami »

Hi, The bombers did not attack at those higher altitudes because they were worried about flak. They knew lower altitudes would improve accuracy but the bombs themselves need to be droped from certain heights in order to have enough energy to penetrate the target. Now AP's are easier to penetrate then warships. And stationary AP's are sitting ducks. I do feel UV allows bombers to attack warships at too low an altitude, but not enough to take too great an issue with it. (It works both ways, the Japanese just do not have any bombers that can take advantage of this feature untill the army bombers show up.)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
AP514
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Houston,TX ,USA

Post by AP514 »

HEY
WHATS THE STRAFE BUG YOU WERE TALK'N ABOUT...THE HOUSE RULE ??
YOU GOT ME ON THE HOOK....NOW TELL ME WHATS UP WITH THE STRAFE BUG ?


AP514
User avatar
Piiska
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Piiska »

Originally posted by AP514
HEY WHATS THE STRAFE BUG YOU WERE TALK'N ABOUT...THE HOUSE RULE ?? YOU GOT ME ON THE HOOK....NOW TELL ME WHATS UP WITH THE STRAFE BUG?
Sometimes when fighters are set to attack altitude of 100ft they use their machine guns instead of bombs. Sometimes these attacks cause ridiculous 3000+ casualties.

I remember that one of the Matrix guys responded that the bug has been fixed and the figures the pilots report are not real, but part of fog of war. This same overestimation of casualties applies to 100+ casualties in regural bombings as well. Or so I understood.

I haven't been able to veryfy this to one direction or another after 2.20, so I can't say for sure.

Hey I just got past 100 posts. Wow :D Now where did my life go?...I'm sure I saw it somewhere here just a little while ago..I wonder if its under my table..
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

Post by Mr.Frag »

What annoys me is when 3 silly level bombers go off solo and blow through 27 cap over a AA infested port just to land that PERFECT hit on that AP that happens to be in a HUGE convoy of 3 whole ships!

Boy, a round of Silver Stars for those brave bomber boys!

Level Bombers seem to land hits way too often on shipping for my tastes, it seems WAY beyond the norm.

One can understand Betties and Nells that switch loadout to torpedos getting hits, but level bombers are way out of control. Remember the 1,000 plane raids of WWII, just to make sure they hit the target ... here we launch 3 and alter history! :eek:

I could understand 2-3 entire squadrons coming to carpet bomb the place and landing serious hits everywhere, but when 40 bombers generate 3!!! airfield hits vs 3 bombers generate 2 bomb hits on a moving naval target, the odds are just a tad off ;)
User avatar
Grumbling Grogn
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
Location: Texas!
Contact:

Post by Grumbling Grogn »

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Remember the 1,000 plane raids of WWII, just to make sure they hit the target ... here we launch 3 and alter history! :eek:


I understand what you are saying but you are doing exactly what I warned about in my last post.

You can not make any kind of valid comparison between 1,000 plane raids conducted in the European theater against fixed targets the size of small cities, at altitudes of 20,000+ to a low altitude bomb run (a 6,000 feet) in the Pacific Theater. :rolleyes:

Again, maybe the hits are too high. But, you can not compare the attacks we all execute at 6,000 feet with anything that happened in reality during this time period because they simply did not execute bomb runs with medium and heavy bombers at this altitude much (AFAIK).
The Grumbling Grognard
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

Post by dpstafford »

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Again, maybe the hits are too high. But, you can not compare the attacks we all execute at 6,000 feet with anything that happened in reality during this time period because they simply did not execute bomb runs with medium and heavy bombers at this altitude much (AFAIK).

Then we shouldn't be allowed to in UV.......

I have always thought that plane altitude should be abstracted completely out of the game (like Pac War).
Bax
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 8:42 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Post by Bax »

Again, maybe the hits are too high. But, you can not compare the attacks we all execute at 6,000 feet with anything that happened in reality during this time period because they simply did not execute bomb runs with medium and heavy bombers at this altitude much (AFAIK).
Exactly, and that's why we shouldn't be allowed to set bombing alt for heavy, four-engined bombers to anything less than 10,000ft. At the very least, there should be some kind of morale or fatigue penalty for forcing B-17's to fly lower than say 10,000ft. Maybe an increased stress level having to fly through all the flak.

Not everyone will agree with me, but there you have it.

Speaking of B-17's, has anyone manaed to shoot down a B-17 with an A6M2 yet in the early part of the war? I have yet to see this. My A6M2 CAP fly at 18,000ft, and yet whenever they take on the B-17's(unescorted, btw) at 6,000ft...they run away like little screaming girls. I know this was implemented in 2.20 to prevent the huge Zeke losses of previous releases, but jeez...
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

Post by Mr.Frag »

You can not make any kind of valid comparison between 1,000 plane raids conducted in the European theater against fixed targets the size of small cities, at altitudes of 20,000+ to a low altitude bomb run (a 6,000 feet) in the Pacific Theater.


I really have to disagree with you there. A level bomber (even with the Norden bombsight) does not have anywhere near the accuracy of a dive bomber or torpedo bomber.

The odds of a level bomber such as a B-26 dropping it's 6 500 lb bombs and hitting 1 specific target the size of a ship from 6000 feet are pretty small, yet this game seems to have the AI do this every single turn of the game. When the game starts to register MULTIPLE hits for that same bomber, now I know we have gone off the deep end...

If these puppies were as accurate as UV portrays, then there would have been no need at all for CV's because it would have been a bomber war completely.
Bax
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 8:42 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Post by Bax »

If these puppies were as accurate as UV portrays, then there would have been no need at all for CV's because it would have been a bomber war completely.
Bingo! This is exactly what my first thoughts were when I experienced the accuracy of level bombing in UV.
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”