UPDATE III

Eagle Day to Bombing of the Reich is a improved and enhanced edition of Talonsoft's older Battle of Britain and Bombing the Reich. This updated version represents the best simulation of the air war over Britain and the strategic bombing campaign over Europe that has ever been made.

Moderators: Joel Billings, harley, warshipbuilder, simovitch

User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

okay for this shot, it is just to show how the escourt can be set up

which besides the 1000 foot adjustment, there is also a 100 foot one

so you can add or subtrack pretty much anything you want, if you want to go that far into the details

CE (Close Escourt is going to put you I believe about 500 foot above the raid)
HE (High Escourt is going to put you at least 2000 feet above the raid)

(which of course you can change if you wish)

IE, in the Med, since the B-25/B-26/A-20 are not really good at higher alts and most have a Max Alt of around 20000, you can set the bombers to fly at 15000, and then set your escourt fighters to HE, at 4000 ft above the raid, and you will keep them below the alt that will degrade there proformance, while still letting them do there job

Alt for fighters is tricky and is based on the player, what I like, may not be what others like (in fact we used to have a number of debates on what is best and what does not work on the old fourm)

if you put your fighters too high and the GE come in on derect attack, you may miss them, if you put them too low and the GE come in on bounce bomber, or bounce fighter, you gonna get bounced

alot of people don't really like CE, as the idea is they are flying close to the bombers and the fighters attacking will have to fight there way though them, so what happens is the GE bounce and attack the fighters instead of the bombers

which depending on your play style, may be a good thing or a bad thing, I tend to follow the idea of using bombers as bait to draw the LW into the air, so my fighters can shoot them down, others would rather lose 50 fighters instead of losing 50 bombers, just so the target can be hit and knocked out, depends on your play style

Oh, and just let me say again, the way I write, talk, may come across wrong, I tend to write with the so called, imperail "WE" and "I"

so if I say, we decided or I decided or I seen, I mean, Harley, Waynno and I (for the programming, data side) and most of the rest of the Team for the reseach and ideas, I get to do all the writting and all the talking, but there are a lot more in this then just me






Image
Attachments
raidalts.jpg
raidalts.jpg (28.67 KiB) Viewed 559 times
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

okay something that is a little odd
 
the Eight AF, in Nov got a order from Ajax, (Ajax was the code name of the upper command of the VIIIth Airforce)that they were to increase there squadron size
 
so fighters, pretty much went from 16 active to 24, and I think (IIRC) that the bombers went from 8 to 12
 
which in a FG there are 3 Squadrons, in a BG there are 4, the main idea early in the war was on a raid day, 3 squadrons from each BG would be asked to put up enough planes so that the BG would fly a 18 plane unit
 
which gave one Squadron, pretty much the day off (unless they needed to put up spares in case of fall outs and what not)
 
in Nov, once the order came out and enough time past that the planes and men were there, the BGs started to fly A and B groups, as did the FGs, the FGs were set up so they could also fly a C unit
 
but most of what I can find, most A and B missions were flown at 36 planes, and the C if flown, would be either a 16 or a 24 plane unit
 
with the game system we have, I have gone with the idea that the VIIIth FGs will have A and B group, but that means they will be a little stronger then they should be, but they will not have the C group, so I see it as if the C group was also flying to make up the extra numbers
 
the BGs get touchy
 
in the game we got a 48 plane group, that can fly 32, which is pretty much a A and B group set up, just a little weak, so instead of adding a A and B, I have Left the Groups alone, they will be stronger then they should be early, but pretty close later and for most of the war
 
which of course, means we got a hassle for the rest of the AF's, I know that the IXth BG's expanded, but can not find anything to say the IXth FGs flew A and B, (the FGs did grow to close the size of the VIIIth, but mainly flew squadron size missions) which it was not really there intention or set up, once they got away from helping out the VIIIth
 
so, for right now, the IXth is set up with normal size FG/BGs (48 flyable, 72 total fighters, and 32 flyable and 48 total bombers)
 
the 12th is about the same as the IXth
 
the 15th is a Major hassle, I know the BGs in the 15th flew A and B groups, but can not find anything on the FGs, plus we do not use FGs in the 15th, we get the squadrons
 
so for right now, the 15th will fly the basic squadron, until such time as I can prove they also expanded
 
but in the MED, I do not think that is a major hassle, a A and B set up for the fighters, would for the most part be over kill and are not really needed, other then the fact if they were there, they should be there
 
not sure if that is going to help or hurt the understanding of the OOB set up
 
 
speaking of the 15th
if you played the old game, you may know about the 15th fighter bug, that is smashed, there were 18 FS in the game but when the 15th became active, only 9 I think, went to the 15th, the other 9 disappeared (unless they were flying non US fighters, then they stayed in the 12th)
 
which, now, all the Squadrons that should get to the 15th, get to the 15th, only hassle, is some of them get there before they really should, some of them squadrons did stay with the 12th and only later joined the 15th
 
but for game play, and programming reasons, I decided to allow all the squadrons that should go, to go
(ah, this one is on me, it was my call on how to handle it, so right or wrong, I am the blame)
 
 
ahhh, now to open a can of worms
 
the GB or CW Squadrons, right now we get a 27 plane unit, which for the GB/CW means a 24-3 set up, the hassle being, that is a Bomber Command set up, not Fighter Command, which overall, FC squadrons should be more a 12-4/6 set up (but so saying, they were also expanding and had extra planes and pilots, but they still fly the same basic formation as before)
 
right now, I want to hold off on this issue and save it for a patch, when we got more time to study and work out the details
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

I had made mention of some of the GE planes and how they could be made heavy or light (normal)

here is a shot of the plane data base, showing some of the planes

(I kind of cheated with the 109K-6, it really should be a 109K-4/R, the K-4 didn't change into a K-6, but I didn't want to make the player reseach two planes of the same type, and then build two planes of the same type, and I thought the firepower of the K-6 to be enough of a reason to have it in the game)

but the rest of them are simi right

the 190A-5/R1 is a little shaky, I find reports of it this way and then I find reports of a A-5/U10, which was a test bed to see if it was a good idea, and then on the next model, it became the A-6/R1

so depending on the source, some say yea and other say nay

(I really don't want to say how many books I got that disagree with each other)



Image
Attachments
geplanes.jpg
geplanes.jpg (88.98 KiB) Viewed 559 times
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

it is a little HARD to see from the shot, but the A5 has 2 wing mounted 20mm FF MGs, while the A-6 has two wing mounted 151/20 Cannons mounted, they show the same damage, but the Acc is better on the latter
 
 
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

Okay let me go over some of the bug list
 
SAS bug fix
 
Climb rate bug corrected, planes now climb at there climb rate, before, they could go from 0 to 25000 in one minute
 
Leader Exe Bug, leaders would show up in the game and most would be 50, corrected (not that some leaders may still show up at 50, but that is what they should be)
 
High Bombing Bug (was also in BoB, UV and WitP, Gary G was kind enough to expain what he did, so we were able to find and correct it)
 
Early Game Scoreing now shown Correctly if Minus
 
Double damage if hitting a Balloon (you flew into a Balloon, you lost two planes)
 
Intercept bug
 
Manatory Targetting bug corrected (a big one, a lot of targets were not being tracked in Overlord and Advalnce, so all the damage done, was not showing up, so Matantory was keep on when it should of been turned off)
 
Freese Ray (already talked about)
 
Dover/Belfast (already talked about)
 
199 mission Bug (game would crash when you plotted 199 missions)
 
Pilot Currupion bug
 
Flak kills of GE planes were getting listed as Allied planes
 
some features
 
New Waypoints
 
Patrol Mode
 
Ground kills added to unit page
 
Ground kills added to pilot page
 
FB can now sweep and can escourt other FB on sweeps
 
Pilot and Aircraft losses are now tracked by unit
 
Axis Production (GB in BoB) now set to data base, instead of Exe
 
Recon take more then one Snap during mission (believe it is up to 5)
 
Recon Pilots can now gain exp
 
a training system has been added to the game, abstract, but it is there
 
3 new nations added to the data base
 
new devices
 
AI Mk. VIII radar
12000 Tallboy
 
Helgoland Island
 
Airfields, Oils, Fuel, Cities, AFAC, EFAC
 
a number of Ports
 
 I show 55 new or changed plane types
 
and that is from a set of note from 4 months ago :)
 
 
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

Okay, Training

each turn, each basic Nation gets so many pilots, they have a base number, +or- (believe 5)

so, say the US is going to get X number of pilots a day in 1943, so the numbers would be around 55, +or- based on a die roll, so, again, the numbers should fall in the 50 to 60 range, if there is a day, where they do not take all of there pilots (they basicly lose the unused ones, they do not stack) the next day, those pilots not taken, would be given a +1 to there after die roll number, so if you did not use 3 of the pilots on day 17, on day 18, the first 3 pilots would be given a +1 to there Exp Number

if they go a few turns with out any pilots being needed, they it keeps growing (there is a cap set, so you will not get a bunch of 99 Exp pilots) 

which so saying each Nation has different base numbers and numbers that they get, the US is going to get more pilots then the CW, the CW are going to get more pilots then the French or the Poles and or what not

and each also has a different base Exp to begin with

Combat is still going to be your best teacher, but it is something to help along a little if you are not needing to use your pilot replacements everyday

Image
User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: UPDATE III

Post by BigDuke66 »

Any special targets for the Tallboy?

Check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb
User avatar
Mannock
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:55 pm

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Mannock »

So RAF fighter units can now escort US bombers? Because they couldn't in BTR, as far as I can remember. And that was annoying since RAF did help out the US bombers on more than one occasion.

By the way, will the campaigns/scenarios be the same as they were in the original games? Or will you add campaigns/scenarios or modify the existing ones in any way?
Always from below, seldom on the same level and never from above. - Mannock revised.
Denniss
Posts: 9328
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Denniss »

Some questions of the visible aircraft data:
Why do cannon-armed versions of the Bf 109G (with R6 package) and the K-6 get an extra point in durability? I hope it's only for gameplay reasons as in reality they do not much to increase aircraft strength or survivability.
The Bf 109 K-4 is reported to reach 715 km/h and that should be somewhat in the 444 mph range.
The Fw 190 D-9 is reported to reach 438 mph in 5.5 km alt with Sonder-Notleistung using higher octane C3 fuel or 430 mph at 5.4 km with boost-increase kit (1900 PS base engine) and MW-50 injection. Also the climb rats look a little low. Some data
Did you remove the armor-2 types completely or did you just forgot it with Fw 190 A-8/R7 and A-8/R8 Sturmbocks?

Was the drop tank issue resolved with the german planes getting less minutes from a gallon of fuel than the allied ones did get?
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

Lets see

Tallboy, pretty much is just going to be a big bomb, but over all (right now) only 617 and later 9 squadrons can carry them (if either squadron changes plane types, they will not get the tallboy back)

with in reason, the Tallboy was pretty much 3 Cookies bolted together and then streamlined

we would need some major recodeing to make targets that would only be effected by them (but sub pens and what not would be the prime targets of choice, and BB's if we could fit them in)


RAF, right now, we have a ADGB HQ that is attached to the VIIIth and one that is attached to the IXth, that have some units that will fly Escourt with the US, other then that, the rest are locked into flying with just there own units

(talk and ideas on trying to let units change command and what not, but again, too much too soon, so don't count on it)

Campaigns

right now, we got a 1940 and 41 Campaign for BoB, each will have the mini Campaigns included
we also have the 43 and 44 Campaign for BTR

those are Data Base controlled, so I can work with them and set them up, the short battles in BTR, need to be HARD coded (like the Jet Campaign in BTR, the unit changes and what not, are in the Code, not in the data)

so... I would look for the 4 main Campaigns and hopefully the training one day battle for sure, and then the rest that were in the game as time allows

to the good, all the info is there already, or will be, it is just getting it set up to use

(I would really like to revamp a what if campaign)

Wow Good eye, I missed that, we had to do a lot of moving of data around to get every thing lined up, I think that is one of the slots that didn't change correctly (build rates and upgrades didn't either)

so yes you are correct, they should have the same numbers as the plain jane models (Dang)


you going to hit me for 3 miles a hour ? :)

naw, I am not using book speeds for some of the later models, I have a number of British test results that I used for them

one thing they found about about the stats on the K, most of them were based on the 4 bladed prop, that it never ended up flying with, and also a lot of the stats the GE stated for there late war models, were all worked out in wind tunnel tests (the airspace over GE land, was not too swift for running basic trails, Kurt Tank got jumped while flying a TA-152, and some other test pilots scored kills during there test flights)

so where I could, I went with the GB test results, the hassle being, that I couldn't use or have there results on every plane, just some

as you know, alot of the numbers for what a lot of the planes could do, they never reached

we dropped the 2 armor, in fact most of what it did, was to tell the plane it was a attack plane and not a fighter, so don't fight, so changing that number to a 1 helps with the FB types

the Fuel system has been totally reworked, twice, so pretty much the ranges and fuel should work the same for both sides, one hassle is, the drop tank may not hold as much fuel as most people would think

(the US 200 Gallon tank, I really chopped that one down, they never flew with it full to start with and it was dropped as soon as they hit the coast, as you couldn't climb over 20 K and have it work)

(which so saying, I am not sure if we got anything that even uses the 200 gallon tank, but it is in there)

Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

oh forgot to mention

climb rates are touchy, most times they tell Max rate or starting rate, not the total rate, so when I could, I tried to work more with the time to Alt rates then max

some planes may have a 4500 a minute climb rate posted, but then state that it took 7 minutes and 23 seconds to reach 20,000 ft

plus a lot of times, the best climbing speed was slow, over all, with in reason, the idea was (depending on plane and type) to pull up nose up and hit around 150 mph

when you see these 4000-5000 rates, they were going full speed and pulled up, they get a great burst of climb, but can not maintain it for long

(LOL, My flight simming beta days, we worked on the 109 K4, we couldn't pull the nose up enough to hit 150 in a climb, talk about a rocket !, but over all, give me a F any day)

okay, how does this look



Image
Attachments
geplanes.jpg
geplanes.jpg (88.72 KiB) Viewed 555 times
Image
HMSWarspite
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: UPDATE III

Post by HMSWarspite »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Lets see

Tallboy, pretty much is just going to be a big bomb, but over all (right now) only 617 and later 9 squadrons can carry them (if either squadron changes plane types, they will not get the tallboy back)

with in reason, the Tallboy was pretty much 3 Cookies bolted together and then streamlined

we would need some major recodeing to make targets that would only be effected by them (but sub pens and what not would be the prime targets of choice, and BB's if we could fit them in)

I don't know whether you have just explained it quickly, but it sounds as if you are mixing up the Tallboy with the 12000lb HC. The 12000HC was indeed effectively 3 4000lb cookies bolted together, and only marginally streamlined, It was first used in 15/16 Sept 1943 against the Dortmund-Ems canal by 617 sqd. Tallboy was a completely separate device, in a forged casing with a bolt on aft section and tail, and was designed as a deep penetration weapon. It was first used in 1944 vs the Saumur railway tunnel, also by 617.
For ref: Tallboy, weight 11,800lb, charge: 5200lb torpex, with a 1" cushioning (sic) layer of TNT in the nose.

(Grand slam was an exact scale of Tallboy to 22000lb)

I haven't got exact stats for the 12000lb HC, but it had a charge ratio of c 70% (i.e. 8400lb) of Minol I believe.

Tallboys need (were used for) specialist targets, 12000lb HC are just a very big bang!
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
Richrd
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2002 6:14 am

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Richrd »

So, you can begin training German pilots but the scenario begins past the point where it can make a difference?
Richrd
SMK-at-work
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: New Zealand

RE: UPDATE III

Post by SMK-at-work »

Will there be a scenario for going past hte historical end date of the war so we can have B-29's maybe carrying 2 Grand Slams??!! [&o][&o][&o]
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
Denniss
Posts: 9328
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Denniss »

Just for Info:
The K-4 with 4-bladed Dünnblattpropeller (thin blade prop) reached 728 km/h, the standard K-4 with 3-bladed prop the given 715 km/h.

British war test reports should always taken with a grain of salt, they often used crash-landed and repaired aircraft for their test or used this test data and interpolating it to a newer version (the famous Bf 109 F-2 with dodgy engine interpolated to F-4 with stronger engine (they knew of) and prop with wider blades (they didn't knew of)).

What I don't like with the R6 babies is the very high loss in MVR, probably 1 (maybe two) point too much, but a really low loss of climb rate. AFAIK these two MG 151/20 with installation and ammo weighted about 150 to 200 kg each and this should affect climbrate somewhat higher.
Here's a late-war british test report of a G-6/U2 with R6 package (as noted as two 20 m guns in underwing gondolas, clearly visible in the pics). Especially interesting are the range tables showing the Spits as really short-legged, even with a 90 imp gallon drop tank not reaching the G-6 with 66 imp gallon drop tank

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... tical.html
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
Mannock
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:55 pm

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Mannock »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

RAF, right now, we have a ADGB HQ that is attached to the VIIIth and one that is attached to the IXth, that have some units that will fly Escourt with the US, other then that, the rest are locked into flying with just there own units

Well, that's better than nothing. I think it will be a nice boost for the escorting of bombers. :)

Keep up the good work, gentlemen.
Always from below, seldom on the same level and never from above. - Mannock revised.
User avatar
George Patton
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:38 am
Location: Lugano, Switzerland

RE: UPDATE III

Post by George Patton »

I know, guys, that you heard this question dozen of times. But we'll have this fabulous game before Christmas?
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Lets see

Tallboy, pretty much is just going to be a big bomb, but over all (right now) only 617 and later 9 squadrons can carry them (if either squadron changes plane types, they will not get the tallboy back)

with in reason, the Tallboy was pretty much 3 Cookies bolted together and then streamlined

we would need some major recodeing to make targets that would only be effected by them (but sub pens and what not would be the prime targets of choice, and BB's if we could fit them in)

I don't know whether you have just explained it quickly, but it sounds as if you are mixing up the Tallboy with the 12000lb HC. The 12000HC was indeed effectively 3 4000lb cookies bolted together, and only marginally streamlined, It was first used in 15/16 Sept 1943 against the Dortmund-Ems canal by 617 sqd. Tallboy was a completely separate device, in a forged casing with a bolt on aft section and tail, and was designed as a deep penetration weapon. It was first used in 1944 vs the Saumur railway tunnel, also by 617.
For ref: Tallboy, weight 11,800lb, charge: 5200lb torpex, with a 1" cushioning (sic) layer of TNT in the nose.

(Grand slam was an exact scale of Tallboy to 22000lb)

I haven't got exact stats for the 12000lb HC, but it had a charge ratio of c 70% (i.e. 8400lb) of Minol I believe.

Tallboys need (were used for) specialist targets, 12000lb HC are just a very big bang!

Well, I would have to say, you caught me up in being a designer, and yes you are correct, what I made was based on the 12000 HC, only my thinking was that maybe 1 in 10 may know about the 12000 HC, where most everyone has heard of the Tallboy

and since the game does have have any need for the real Tallboy, I figured I would just use it name instead for the HC

which from now on, it will be named the 12000 HC Bomb


Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: Richrd

So, you can begin training German pilots but the scenario begins past the point where it can make a difference?


if you can get to a state, where you are not needing replacements, then any bonus you gain, will be of help

I will agree, if you base skill is 25, and you get a 27, big deal, but when you do have a chance to get some trained pilots there base is much better

where this may kick in and the Allied player a bite in the boot, is in the Med and the East, they decide that the MED is not importent enough to waste time down there, the Co axis, the Hun, the Romy and the It may end up training some nice pilots, but they will never get enough of them, to make a major difference though

Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: UPDATE III

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Will there be a scenario for going past hte historical end date of the war so we can have B-29's maybe carrying 2 Grand Slams??!! [&o][&o][&o]


hmmm, to be honest, I do not really know what the end date in the normal game is (I never got there) but overall, right now, the end will be the same as the current game

now if and when we get to work on some what if, since we have to mess with the code anyway, it should not be HARD to change some dates around

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich”