Low Level Naval Attacks

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: herwin

Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.

There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them.

yeah, you need base forces for it. And there are two different balloons IIRC, at a differnt alt.

I'd be interested in understanding how they were modelled. Encountering one was a very bad day for the aircraft crew--something like 61% of the time the aircraft was lost.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.

Two points here. Japan had a limited supply of balloons and operating units, and "reccon missions" should reveal their presence (kinda hard to hide them).

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: EUBanana




There are barrage balloons in game, and they are somewhat effective, but not every port is going to have them.

yeah, you need base forces for it. And there are two different balloons IIRC, at a differnt alt.

I'd be interested in understanding how they were modelled. Encountering one was a very bad day for the aircraft crew--something like 61% of the time the aircraft was lost.

don´t know how they work in the game exactly, I do know that they can´t reach 10,000ft, hence my standard attack alt of 10,000ft for my Allied bombers when attacking an enemy base. Whenever I attacked below 10,000ft (by accident) then I suffered more trom balloons than enemy flak.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No form of bombing was "easy"...., except maybe "area bombing". But there is no rational justification for making "skip bombing" as difficult as the game makes it.

Surely, by "difficult" you meant "ridiculously effective"? Unless you, like, totally ignore training, it is quite rare to get a 100-ft. pass without hits. And I meant "pass", not "raid". Even against APDs and whatever.

I'm amazed by people who whine that the tactic that is partially houseruled out of almost every PBEM out there to prevent complete breakdown of the game (because that's what altitude restiction for 4E naval attacks is, in essence) is somehow underpowered. Do they play at all?

[DBS]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

The Brits WERE bombing from "masthead height" from the beginning of the Pacific war, but they hadn't developed the "skip" technique, i AFAIK they didn't have special bombs... their results weren't nearly as good as the later "skip" technique. i expect they had a lot of problems with the bombers being damaged with their own bombs... i don't recall the exact details, but i am pretty sure they pretty much abandoned it due to high casualties.

The RAF employed masthead attacks against German merchant shipping in the English Channel from 1940 onwards. If anything, their doctrine encouraged such an aggressive approach. Not aware of self-damage from bombs being a major problem, but Blenheims were suffering anything up to 25% casualties from AA fire, Luftwaffe fighter cover, and the hazards of operating at that level - eg hitting masts, towed barrage balloons, or just the Oggin itself. Coastal Command also employed very low level attacks from 1939 vs U-boats - these latter attacks did suffer some self-damage due to poorly designed ASW bombs skipping and exploding behind the aircraft.

The RAF eventually solved the casualty problems with faster, better aircraft (Beaufighters and Mossies), carrying a lot more firepower (a Beau with 4xHispano and 6x.303 arguably the match of the B-25 gunships) to suppress flak on the run-in, adding rockets and torps into the mix, and using massed wings of 30+ aircraft to mob a convoy. By the time such toys and tactics became available, suspect pretty limited trade available in the SEAC area out east; Beaus did a good enough job anyway, in penny packets, vs any small craft they chanced upon. Put bluntly, the British area of ops in the East had a coastline running roughly at right angles to the front-line, while in the SW Pacific (and the English Channel) it more often approximated to perpendicular, giving more targets and easier reach.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No form of bombing was "easy"...., except maybe "area bombing". But there is no rational justification for making "skip bombing" as difficult as the game makes it.

Surely, by "difficult" you meant "ridiculously effective"? Unless you, like, totally ignore training, it is quite rare to get a 100-ft. pass without hits. And I meant "pass", not "raid". Even against APDs and whatever.

I'm amazed by people who whine that the tactic that is partially houseruled out of almost every PBEM out there to prevent complete breakdown of the game (because that's what altitude restiction for 4E naval attacks is, in essence) is somehow underpowered. Do they play at all?

And I think what you mean by "ridiculously effective" is "effective for the Allies". Historically these attacks were VERY effective..., but only for the Allies who had the A/C types necessary to do them.

As to "restrictions", if you bother to read through this thread, you'll see that I'm in favor of limiting "skip bombing" to "gunship bombers" with a 60 skill in low level naval attack. Hardly promoting a "complete breakdown of the game"..., just a accurate recreation of the situation that existed in the last two years of the war.

If you want to talk about "ridiculously effective", have some Kates level bomb a naval TF of DD's from 9,000 feet. Historically they got something like 05% hits on the "sitting ducks" at PH---in the game you can consider yourself to have been robbed if they don't get 50% hits on ships maneuvering at 30 knots in the open ocean. Now that goes right past ridiculous and straight to absurd.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design".

Not necessarily so. One purpose of a game is to make it competitive between two or more players. Simulations are supposed to be "historically accurate." So, a game like AE, which is some degree of both, can have features of both. Some of us seem to think that AE isa perfect simulation, or at least, is supposed to be. It's not.

Mike, are you suggesting that this is the ONLY play balance code in AE? If so, then look again.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design".

Not necessarily so. One purpose of a game is to make it competitive between two or more players. Simulations are supposed to be "historically accurate." So, a game like AE, which is some degree of both, can have features of both. Some of us seem to think that AE is a perfect simulation, or at least, is supposed to be. It's not.

But it SHOULD be. The game is called "The War in the Pacific". Not "Some Semblance of the War in the Pacific"..., "Kinda, Sorta, like the War in the Pacific".

Which means that it SHOULD resemble as closely as possible the actual historical war. Not some JFB's notion of a "fair fight". "Fair Fight" belongs in the scenario selection under "Yamamoto has a Wet Dream".

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design".

Not necessarily so. One purpose of a game is to make it competitive between two or more players. Simulations are supposed to be "historically accurate." So, a game like AE, which is some degree of both, can have features of both. Some of us seem to think that AE isa perfect simulation, or at least, is supposed to be. It's not.

Mike, are you suggesting that this is the ONLY play balance code in AE? If so, then look again.

I think you have actually reinforced Mike's point. 'Balance' can not be taken out of the game engine, so everybody gets stuck with it. But balance can be put in or taken out of scenarios as people wish.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think you have actually reinforced Mike's point. 'Balance' can not be taken out of the game engine, so everybody gets stuck with it. But balance can be put in or taken out of scenarios as people wish.

YES! Somebody "gets it". Make the basic game engine as accurate as possible, and you can drive it anywhere. Screw it up in the name of "balance" and you are stuck in the same place forever...

[mike scholl 1]

Still hoping someone on the design team will confirm/deny the "80" skill threshold for "skip bombing".

[Nemo121]

Apart from the whole issue of what it entailed and how it is balanced could someone just clarify what skills are useful for the mission?

It seems to me that for low-level attacks low level naval attack would have to be trained for ( so set your bombers at 1,000 feet and train them 100% ) but for attack bombers to benefit from their strafing power would one also have to specifically train for that?

[spence]

I've been thinking about this type of attack and it actually seems to encompass two different types of attack (or does it):

1)skip-bombing, actually bouncing the bomb off the water at an extremely acute angle (as practiced by 5th AF) where the bomb is dropped to enter the side of the ship and/or
2)low level "masthead" bombing (as practiced by the USN and others) where the bomb is dropped from an aircraft in a shallow glide but intended to enter the ship through the deck.

It would seem the skill sets needed would be different for each. Perhaps the strafing skill at 100 ft would be best for skip-bombing whereas the naval attack at 1000 ft would be better for masthead bombing.

[spence]

I forgot to add:

For skip-bombing the attack would be made from the beam of the ship. It would less effective against armored ships because for any given class the armor in the belt would most likely be thicker than the armor in the deck.

For masthead bombing the attack would be made from ahead or (better) astern since the target would be bigger stem to stern than across the beams.

[SuluSea]

A small test by my attack bombers shows 1 hit in 3 separate attacks at 100% naval attack for the 14 planes against AKLs escorted by a few PBs. I've lost more pilots than ships hit goiing against these lightly defended targets, defense is generally in the 60s. The pilots are trained up to 70-71 with 3 at mid 60 or higher in low naval bombing, strafing is still low 20s  but it seems 6 or so pilots get bumped up every attack. Hopefully this picks up but if it doesn't in the future I'll just use these planes for training using other attack methods. For now I pulled them back for more training.

It seems at first glance the Kate bombing and attack bombers accuracy is completely reversed.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

A small test by my attack bombers shows 1 hit in 3 separate attacks at 100% naval attack for the 14 planes against AKLs escorted by a few PBs. I've lost more pilots than ships hit goiing against these lightly defended targets, defense is generally in the 60s. The pilots are trained up to 70-71 with 3 at mid 60 or higher in low naval bombing, strafing is still low 20s  but it seems 6 or so pilots get bumped up every attack. Hopefully this picks up but if it doesn't in the future I'll just use these planes for training using other attack methods. For now I pulled them back for more training.

It seems at first glance the Kate bombing and attack bombers accuracy is completely reversed.

I´ve used my attack bombers for airfield attacks and 48 bombers usually achieve 1-2 hits on the runway... they´re all very low in strafe skill (of course they are when you can´t train bomber pilots to strafe = 1st oversight IMO) and it seems to me that the only skill used in 100ft attacks is STRAFE, which means you would be better off to put FIGHTER pilots into your attack bombers. Haven´t tried it yet but that´s the next thing I´m going to do, using fighter pilots with strafe skill in my attack bombers. [8|]

just to point it out, if you use 48 B-25C level bombers at 10,000ft you usally get a couple of dozen hits without having them trained at all, so achieving 1-2 hits from 100ft without having them trained is pretty odd... as it is now, you´re just screwed for having the new feature of attack bombers because with normal medium level bombers you would be ten times better off... hey, ho, thank god I don´t get a single medium level bomber anymore for the USAAF, only unusable attack bombers. The fact that they gain NAVAL skill during a 100ft airfield attack is just another flaw that I don´t really care about, that happens when you set them to nav attack as primary and airfield attack as secondary mission. They gain strafe skill and nav attack (not even lownav from attacking an AIRFIELD at 100ft)...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Tell that to the game designers! And, after all, i think they designed most of the official scenarios, so they are one in the same, no?

I think I just did. And even those wearing two hats should have known that "historical accuracy" is the bedrock of "game design", and "play balancing" is a part of "scenario design".


If a scenario is wrong, it's correctable by the players. Once you build WRONG into the system, only the designers can change it.

You are dead on here. The game really needs a rework to throw out all of the fantasy aspects. Let the modders then introduce scenarios for balance and fun. I really want an accurate historical simultation. Always have.

Ok, so nobody wants to play a historical simulation as Japan. But, at least it is there as a base game and the modders can juice it up.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.

No I can't buy into that. Perhaps heavy bombers but I doubt that as well.

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.

Several major Japanese naval bases were devastated by low flying attackers (including heavy bombers)...Rabaul, Truk and Kure amongst them. They all had plenty of warning that there was a war was going on. Either the Japanese didn't use them or they had a shortage of them...there are quite a few photos of Japanese ships under attack in the aforementioned harbors yet I can't recall ever having seen a barrage balloon in any of them. Doesn't mean they weren't there but seems to indicate they were not effective.

[JohnDillworth]

Naval bases were protected by barrage balloons, usually deployed at 5000 feet. No port attack against a prepared enemy should be allowed at an altitude of less than 6000 feet.

Didn't carrier aircraft decimate Truk on at least one occasion. I am sure they were lower than 6,000 feet. got to think barrage balloons would work just as well on TB's and DB's. If they Japanese didn't have barrage balloons at Truk they must have been in short supply. I think they did they same thing at Rubaul on a number of occasions. I heard that where most SBD losses occurred.