plane loss rate in general in this game

[Oliver Heindorf]

Reading all the AARs and to my own expierience, I think that the rate of losses is quite high..sometims 100's of bombers during 1 week of battles and countless fighers on the other side downed ....

are those losses historical ?

Like the original witp air combat seems to be much bloodier in the game that it actually was.

any one else ?

[wernerpruckner]

play historically....and you will get close to historical losses.....play unhistorical you will get much more losses.
there are too many ready A/C on both sides.......

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: swift
play historically....and you will get close to historical losses.....play unhistorical you will get much more losses.
there are too many ready A/C on both sides.......

That's a red herring, Swift. You cannot make the AI play historical, nor can you control the number of aircraft which fly in a unit. If they are ready, they fly. And the AI flies nearly everything it can. Furthermore, units do not have ammunition limits and the morale break off routines do not work to the extent necessary to produce more historical results. So there are more planes and more engagements in the air which result in overall higher than historical loss rates even when you do not throw every unit into a mission or interception.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: swift

play historically....and you will get close to historical losses.....play unhistorical you will get much more losses.
there are too many ready A/C on both sides.......

Hi Swift,

yes, throw more planes in the air and you'll probably get more losses (though not exponentially more in most cases). What i'd be interested in getting comment on is, if you throw more of those ready planes in the air all at once and/or continuously....do servicability rates plunge and for a signigant period?

[Golden Bear]

Not clear with your query, Nik. If you fly your bombers multiple days in a row they stop being able to put up a full group fairly quickly. You'll see the "Unavailable" figure go up.


Carlos

[Nikademus]

my point was, if serviability rates remain high despite very heavy usage of all available assets, this would be an underlying factor in the increased losses....not simply that "more in the air means more are being shot down vs. historical" Add to this wear and tear, damage from combat and continuous large scale operations should see servicability rates drop to the point where a player can't put so many planes into the air. If they can.....there's your underlying cause for sustained bloodiness.

[Oliver Heindorf]

Not to mention, that Nik is Mr. Nik Mod of WITP - a really good mod for witp - played it and liked it in one of my PBEM [&o]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

ORIGINAL: swift
play historically....and you will get close to historical losses.....play unhistorical you will get much more losses.
there are too many ready A/C on both sides.......

That's a red herring, Swift. You cannot make the AI play historical, nor can you control the number of aircraft which fly in a unit. If they are ready, they fly. And the AI flies nearly everything it can. Furthermore, units do not have ammunition limits and the morale break off routines do not work to the extent necessary to produce more historical results. So there are more planes and more engagements in the air which result in overall higher than historical loss rates even when you do not throw every unit into a mission or interception.

You also can't make your PBEM oppos use their aircraft historically either.

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

What i'd be interested in getting comment on is, if you throw more of those ready planes in the air all at once and/or continuously....do servicability rates plunge and for a signigant period?

This is the crux of the matter and IMHO servicability rates are too high compared to real life, hence the ahistorically high numbers of a/c available for ops (all sides) and the bloodier than real life aerial combat.

I think the underlying combat model is generally quite good, there are just too many a/c involved.

[von Shagmeister]

Deleted - wrong thread

[Toby42]

I found this link:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Treale
I found this link:
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

Thanks. Surprising that the author did not include the April 1944 raids during which the 8th AF lost more bombers than any other month of the war. Seems that the battles of that month would be a good topic for a book. It was a low point of morale in the 8th too. Many of the raids were to southern Germany and scores of bombers ended up in Switzerland. Seems pilots took advantage when neutral territory was nearby - some of the bombers were not damaged. (this also occurred in raids on Baltic targets and Sweden was close).

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

ORIGINAL: swift
play historically....and you will get close to historical losses.....play unhistorical you will get much more losses.
there are too many ready A/C on both sides.......

That's a red herring, Swift. You cannot make the AI play historical, nor can you control the number of aircraft which fly in a unit. If they are ready, they fly. And the AI flies nearly everything it can. Furthermore, units do not have ammunition limits and the morale break off routines do not work to the extent necessary to produce more historical results. So there are more planes and more engagements in the air which result in overall higher than historical loss rates even when you do not throw every unit into a mission or interception.

You also can't make your PBEM oppos use their aircraft historically either.

yes, but you´ll see that I like playing historically.....

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: swift

yes, but you´ll see that I like playing historically.....

You may well do old boy, I wasn't meaning to imply you don't. [:)]

It's just a general observation.

[Hard Sarge]

you know, back and forth, been seeing a number of posts about losses in the game

just want you to remember, the losses in BTR have always been heavy, that is nothing to do with the new game, persay

way back when, I set up a first turn save, to show people how I planned my raids back on the old forum, and on the first day of the 43 campaign, that save could get between 350-420 Axis knocked down, for around 200 Allied, at a time, when most players had trouble scoring kills vs the Axis

I also, have knocked down 330 B-17s during a day, in a PBEM game I had running, in Aug of 43, the game was bloody, and the game is bloody now, even more, if you make a mistake, or if something goes wrong with your planning (a decoy raid, instead of drawing the enemy away, may draw them towards a raid, bad weather grounds the fighters, but the bombers take off, decoys and sweeps are delayed, while the main force takes off on time)

but that is what is great with this game, you do everything right and you get your head handed to you, you make a mistake and can (if lucky) come out smelling like a rose, make the same mistake tomorrow, and get hammered

remember, BC lost around 57-58,000 crew members during the war, the VIIIth Airforce, lost more men then the Marines did, the game is bloody, but so was the times

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
just want you to remember, the losses in BTR have always been heavy, that is nothing to do with the new game, persay

Which begs the question, seeing that is has always been a problem, is whether you and your team tried and gave up attempting to correct it, or have not had the opportunity yet to do so. I don't mean for this to sound damning, but I think it a fair question as to whether we will or will not see a more accurate (ie historical) version in the future. If we're going to have to live with a Hollywood version of the war, then please be upfront about it.

[Golden Bear]

Wow, pretty harsh, Nicholas. Some us, well me anyway, feel that it is fairly accurate given that it is a simulation. When I look at the campaign summary I don't see things that look out of line with historical results. Having read battle reports over the years it seems that if anything is unhistorical it is the ease with which the LW player can dominate the bombing attacks by the AI.


Carlos

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Golden Bear
Wow, pretty harsh, Nicholas. Some us, well me anyway, feel that it is fairly accurate given that it is a simulation.

I don not agree that it is a simulation. It's a game - and that's okay. But let's not pretend it bears much resemblance to historical events when discussing Allied losses.

When I look at the campaign summary I don't see things that look out of line with historical results. Having read battle reports over the years it seems that if anything is unhistorical it is the ease with which the LW player can dominate the bombing attacks by the AI.

You contradict yourself - the losses don't look out of line, yet the LW can unrealistically overwhelm the Allied AI - which results in unrealistic losses. This IS part of the problem for sure. The loss rates in game simply do not resemble history, and no one can cite statistics that they do, because they don't exist. Hard Sarge knows that - he's extremely knowledgeable for sure - which is why he admits the game is bloody. I just want to know if it will be addressed or not.

[Golden Bear]

Easy there Nicholas. I'm not the enemy. I just disagree. And please don't play word games. I did not contradict myself, I said "it seems."

It is a simulation to me and I'm sorry that you dislike it because it brings me a lot of pleasure.

Since we are repeating ourselves, the losses don't seem out of line to me. They way they occur may. However, even if the simulation were "perfect" the losses would always be different from what each perceive to have been the reality of the actual combat since the human player is going to take advantage of learnings from that time as well as any interface advantages they can find.


Carlos

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Golden Bear
Easy there Nicholas. I'm not the enemy. I just disagree. And please don't play word games. I did not contradict myself, I said "it seems."
It is a simulation to me and I'm sorry that you dislike it because it brings me a lot of pleasure.
Since we are repeating ourselves, the losses don't seem out of line to me. They way they occur may. However, even if the simulation were "perfect" the losses would always be different from what each perceive to have been the reality of the actual combat since the human player is going to take advantage of learnings from that time as well as any interface advantages they can find.
Carlos

Carlos,

Just because I am critical does not mean I am not enjoying the game. In fact, I've been playing it every day - one reason why these issues are so clear. I am not disallowing your enjoyment of the game either. You seem not have the problems with it that I and others have. That's great.

However, I am not looking for your defense of your gaming experience, rather Hard Sarge's and Harley's response to my question. And just because I put a critical eye on their work, does not mean I do not appreciate all their intelligence, experience, and efforts. But the question still stands as to whether or not they have, or will, address the fact that the losses are too high on a consistent basis, whether looked at on a daily basis or over the longer haul, in comparison to the historical record. I ask for historical backup to the claims that "everything is fine", but I see *nothing*. I'm not from Missouri, but I have a degree in history which infused me with the need to back up what you say with facts, not opinions.

BTW, I don't mind having a pointed rational argument. Getting too old to care much what people call me or think of me. Have a nice day - seriously! [:)]

Nick