Reason why US mediums are such killers?

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: harley

DRM? Digital Rights Management?

I probably should know what that stands for, but I don't. (I also don't know what KB stands for, but as I don't have/desire WITP:AE it probably doesn't matter)

Dice Roll Modifier!

[harley]

Oh, I use Rand, not Die.

Zero is a number.

OK, I use die, but only if zero isn't wanted. Poor zero.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: kitridge

ORIGINAL: Golden Bear

I guess we just disagree. Is it an Allied vs. Axis player thing?

I don't think it's a agree/disagree kinda thing: you're seeing results that I simply don't get.

I go out and shoot down 100 B17's and lose 25 fighters but shoot down 35 medium bombers and lose 25 fighters. The game's bloody, ok, I get that, but the ratio seems wrong to me and can, at times, ruin my game experience. I'll just have to get used to it.


I think the real issue is, the die roll is catching up with you, you do good here so expect to do good there, but the rolls are not coming up the same

which isn't counting all of the other factors that are taking place

Nick
the check guns shouldn't have any effect, other then on a head to head attack, a bounce isn't a head to head attack, a plain attack, will be head to head and both sides get a good chance to fire

on a side note, Galland said the plane the German's hated to attack the most, was the B-26, they flew the tightest formation and had good defensive firepower (but, it's belly was open)

[Golden Bear]

I tried to check head on attacks on B26s in my testing but it was diffcult to do because the plane has limited range and travels to the target so fast that only one unit would get in head on position. In 10 trials it never lost a plane and shot down 0 or 1 in nine of ten of the tests. On the 10th, which was actually the first run, it shot down 5.


Carlos

[otisabuser2]

Not wanting to condone any form of hex-editing here, but as it's already been mentioned more than once here....

Suppose someone were to do tests with the med bombers and hex edited the cheek guns UP to cannons and then tried various bounce/direct attacks and from different directions.

OK, I know adding cannons will skew the results some, but this will be a guide only....

The noise effect for defending mgs is a "rat-a-tat" and for cannons firing is a "boom-boom". This will give a tale-tale audible indicator of whether those cheek guns are destroying/damaging your attacking fighters, or if it's down to the turreted machine guns.

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
Nick
the check guns shouldn't have any effect, other then on a head to head attack, a bounce isn't a head to head attack, a plain attack, will be head to head and both sides get a good chance to fire
on a side note, Galland said the plane the German's hated to attack the most, was the B-26, they flew the tightest formation and had good defensive firepower (but, it's belly was open)

Okay, then it's only occurs when a head on attack occurs using direct attack tactics. But that doesn't change the fact that the cheek guns where not useable for defensive fire due to their orientation. Furthermore I don't think its a lucky randomizer call either because the results are more extreme than the best a B-17 or B-24 formation. After watching thousands of combat results you kind of get to know what the extreme ends of the bell curve are.

I don't disagree regarding your observation on how the German pilots viewed the Marauders. But like all mediums, when attacked in earnest (the German's rarely vectored interceptors on them) and without escort, they got slaughtered just like all the other medium bombers. Witness the B-26 massacre December 23, 1944. The B-26's sterling record for lowest loss/sortie rate was only because the Germans didn't bother to or couldn't intercept them because of the escorts.

And as I continue to play, I am happy with what I am seeing now that I've hexedited out the cheek guns. And that is all that matters to me, as I suspect you won't be making such a change to data.

I would say, put the stingers back on the Balts, that is what they were put there for, the RAF added them, I didn't

I would have to ask you then, if they couldn't fire forward for protection on the B-26, why were they there ? the B-26 wasn't a low level bomber, and since it's normal mission was at around 12-14,000 feet, what were they using the cheek guns for ?

[Golden Bear]

I don't really see why the cheek guns need to be included for running the game/simulation. If they really shouldn't be part of defense then mayce they should be dropped. A problem would be that the configuration that shows up in the data sheet would be incorrect, I guess, and I don't know how much of an issue that is.

I know that I have had the same thought about the B26s low loss rate in the ETO... that they were run away from large raids and didn't draw much attention.

But, is it just the B26s that seem to be at issue or are there high loss rates with B25s or A26s, stuff like that. I know that there can't be with the Mossies given the beatings that they take.

If an Axis player were interested, they could find a turn where a B26 raid is taking place, go back to a save at start of turn and try different intercepts on it repeatedly to try to get similar results to my primitive test. Having said that I haven't ever played the Axis side and don't know how possible it is to get something even moderately repeatable in that regard.


Carlos

[kaybayray]

I have given this a lot of thought over the past couple days. Havnt done any tests. Do enough of that on the job, but I have been reflecting on actual game play.

I dont recall any significant trend where the Medium Bombers have a high kill rate overall compared to any other Allied Bomber. My recollection is that it is variable over time. Some missions the Mediums seem to get a lot of kills and some they get hammered. I believe it is all in the summation of all the factors that are referenced when an intercept occurs and the resultant "Dice Roll" that takes place in the game mechanics.

I have not seen any trend in any direction worthy of any note. However I have only been playing a couple years and only a few hours each week. So I only run a days set of missions once or twice a month depending on how RL is treating me.

For example recent layoffs have forced me to be committed to all the projects of several other Engineers as well as my own projects. So I have not actually run the game in almost 2 months now because I have been just so worn out. But looking back over all my game play I dont really see anything.

Later,
KayBay

[Nicholas Bell]

But, is it just the B26s that seem to be at issue or are there high loss rates with B25s or A26s, stuff like that. I know that there can't be with the Mossies given the beatings that they take.

I've seen the same results from A-20s, B-25's, and Baltimores (ie great killers of German and Italian fighters).  I don't have the source here at work, but with a bit of exaggeration you can count the number of kills claimed during the war by these bombers on two hands.  Playing the Avalanche Scenario (or the 1943 scenario) you can see them doing the same thing.  They all have cheek guns, save the Baltimore which has 4 tail guns in the game (a stinger?).  Again I note that these extraordinary killings are not constant, but prevalent enough during a single mission to raise my eyebrow.  An experienced group of 12 Me-109 bounce a Maryland formation and lose 2 damaged and 3 destroyed.  It happens enough that I was starting to think that those kind of results were the result of the close escort intervening - but the message does not indicate that.  And the problem is gone now that those cheek (and stinger) guns have been edited out.  (again I want to point out this editing does not totally eviscerate those bombers - they still plink a fighter now and then - it's just not entire schwarms getting blown out the sky in a single pass)

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: harley

Oh, I use Rand, not Die.

Zero is a number.

OK, I use die, but only if zero isn't wanted. Poor zero.

Yeah, I forgot it was you.

I should have said... Rand(nDice) + Mod

[:'(]

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

But, is it just the B26s that seem to be at issue or are there high loss rates with B25s or A26s, stuff like that. I know that there can't be with the Mossies given the beatings that they take.

I've seen the same results from A-20s, B-25's, and Baltimores (ie great killers of German and Italian fighters).  I don't have the source here at work, but with a bit of exaggeration you can count the number of kills claimed during the war by these bombers on two hands.  Playing the Avalanche Scenario (or the 1943 scenario) you can see them doing the same thing.  They all have cheek guns, save the Baltimore which has 4 tail guns in the game (a stinger?).  Again I note that these extraordinary killings are not constant, but prevalent enough during a single mission to raise my eyebrow.  An experienced group of 12 Me-109 bounce a Maryland formation and lose 2 damaged and 3 destroyed.  It happens enough that I was starting to think that those kind of results were the result of the close escort intervening - but the message does not indicate that.  And the problem is gone now that those cheek (and stinger) guns have been edited out.  (again I want to point out this editing does not totally eviscerate those bombers - they still plink a fighter now and then - it's just not entire schwarms getting blown out the sky in a single pass)

With the new game you can get a snap of the number of planes a medium unit has lost and the number it has killed. Now that I think about it, I've never seen a medium pilot show up on the ACE's list.

TS

[Hard Sarge]

from running some tests on the mediums, if anything, I think maybe the results show that the Mediums need to be made stronger

the Axis lost some planes, here, but got to remember, 5 were lost to bombing, and 5 were lost to crashing on the runway (shouldn't of used airfields as the target !)

so, 10 of the Axis losses are shaky

plus 14 of the losses are It, those fall out of the sky if you look at them

only one of the 2005 went down, but they claimed about 10 kills

oddly though, for this run, the 26 was left alone, two different raids, and only a few went after it (too busy killing off the Mitch's ?)

losses

almost every attack was a bounce, the couple of plain attacks, all got kills with no return damage taken, was surprised at that

[Hard Sarge]

the Mitchell's took it on the chin

[Hard Sarge]

the 25s were hit HARD, oddly, they only started to get good return fire, once they were shot up, the end part of the raid, they were trading losses

so think something else may be kicking in, the attackers are getting tired, and the defenders are the better crews, the weak sisters have already been lost

[Hard Sarge]

the 26s ruin the whole deal, nobody went after them, and they did the damage to the airfields

[Hard Sarge]

but..., the 26s that did get into a fight, were getting hit by Mc 200s, that is not a good match up in anyone's book

now, if the LW would of armmed some units with rockets, or if any of them had had extra cannons, it would of really of been a blood bath

[Hard Sarge]

I went and ran the same raids using B-17s this time

interesting results

again, take off 5 kills for bombing results, didn't watch for airfield crashes

also, the raids that the 26s took, the 17s had a easy day also, so those are "bad" for the results

the B-17s that did the B-25 run, only 6 of 58 bombers made it home, but they also did the most damage in return

[Nicholas Bell]

All of which shows there are a lot of variables at work under the hood!  [:D]

[Hard Sarge]

I have been saying that all along

plus, oddly, in both of these runs, the 2001 did pretty good, which after the 200 and 50 is about the worse plane in the air

which also, put some fighters into the air, stagger out the times, and all of the rest of the good stuff that should be going on, those numbers should be much lower