Attack bombers broken?

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I wonder if combining low nav and low ground skills would be an option. It seems like pilots for attack bombers are going to take an extremely long time to train up properly with straf plus 2 bomb skills.

I train my normal bomber pilots with Nav B and Ground B to 70 so I can quickly task bombers doing ground missions to naval attacks (level bombing ships isn't super effective... until you send 150 bombers at once after a task force heh), and it takes roughly 6 months to train each pilot to that point. Having to add a 3rd skill for attack bombers would be a major impediment. Especially with the way pilots start to train a lot slower once they pass 50 exp.

Or perhaps they could make attack bombers training low nav or low g also train straf at the same time. That would solve the problem of needing to start your bomber pilots training in fighters heh.

It does take a while, but given the general shortage of allied bombers, and the late arrival of the attack bombers in quantity -- early mid 1943 -- it is not so hard to train them in low ground, low nav, nav search, and even general to bump their air skill a little. You do have to have a restricted fighter unit or two churning out pilots with strafing skill. Until the strafers graduate at strafe skill 60, bomb groups that graduate to attack bomber are either training pilots for regular bombing, or low nav, nav search and high ground bombing.

Based on my experience training ASW pilots from December 8, 1941, they can be trained to average skill of 60 in low bombing, ASW, and nav search by July - August 1942. So, three skills at minimum of 60 in 8 to 9 months. Not really out of line with historical training and deployment reality but hardly sating the AFB desire for full-blown offensive air ops in 1942.

Anyway, in the meantime, any air unit that graduates to the late model P-39s gets the full training in strafing, low nav, and low bombing, and they are very handy, as are the Beaufighters. They will bomb and strafe at skills of 60, and it won't matter too much if they are skip-bombing or not.

OK. Now I'm hijacking the thread for one of my favorite topics; pilot training [:-] [;)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Here are the answers for all those with panties in a proverbial bunch...Nice catch guys!

Attack bomber functions as:

1. Altitude set <6000, attack altitude is "low level". >6k' they are treated as normal LB at altitude selected.

2. AB flights are split up into pairs (or two pairs against land targets) if low level (doctrinal)

3. Due to the order of combat, the pair bomb target at 100 and then strafe at 100.

4. Strafing by AB adds to flak suppression. Higher SKILL_STRAFE value (70+) increases suppression more.

5. Non-attack Level Bombers bombing at <1000 gain a higher fatigue from the firing Flak.

6. Bombing accuracy for non-attack LB attacking at <6000 with low morale or high disruption is lowered.

7. Bombing accuracy of LB against TF at <7000 is reduced. AB accuracy is increased <6000.

@ Mike Sholl
8. No experience/skill minimum to execute an attack by non-AB planes but the attack impacted as mentioned above.

From My main man Michael...
The main reason things don't seem to working is that the code that control what sort of an attack (strafe, bomb land, bomb TF) had a badly constructed IF statement that end up treating AB at low level as strafe attacks which use a different method of bomb accuracy.
The next code change will make the subtle change, apart from that the existing code reflects the above points.

Ian,

First, thank you.

Second, there are two items I wonder if you would comment on.

1) Attack Bombers at altitude - it was mentioned by a bunch of people in a thread that no matter what altitude Attack Bombers were set to, they actually went in low. I mean even if set above 6,000 ft (like 10,000). I know Michael did not comment on that aspect of the bug he found. Would you comment - is what he found having that effect (in addition to the others you listed)?

2) Aside from transferring them temporarily to fighters, how can we train bomber pilots in the Strafing skill?

Thanks in advance.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Here are the answers for all those with panties in a proverbial bunch...Nice catch guys!

Attack bomber functions as:

1. Altitude set <6000, attack altitude is "low level". >6k' they are treated as normal LB at altitude selected.

2. AB flights are split up into pairs (or two pairs against land targets) if low level (doctrinal)

3. Due to the order of combat, the pair bomb target at 100 and then strafe at 100.

4. Strafing by AB adds to flak suppression. Higher SKILL_STRAFE value (70+) increases suppression more.

5. Non-attack Level Bombers bombing at <1000 gain a higher fatigue from the firing Flak.

6. Bombing accuracy for non-attack LB attacking at <6000 with low morale or high disruption is lowered.

7. Bombing accuracy of LB against TF at <7000 is reduced. AB accuracy is increased <6000.

@ Mike Sholl
8. No experience/skill minimum to execute an attack by non-AB planes but the attack impacted as mentioned above.

From My main man Michael...
The main reason things don't seem to working is that the code that control what sort of an attack (strafe, bomb land, bomb TF) had a badly constructed IF statement that end up treating AB at low level as strafe attacks which use a different method of bomb accuracy.
The next code change will make the subtle change, apart from that the existing code reflects the above points.

Ian,

First, thank you.

Second, there are two items I wonder if you would comment on.

1) Attack Bombers at altitude - it was mentioned by a bunch of people in a thread that no matter what altitude Attack Bombers were set to, they actually went in low. I mean even if set above 6,000 ft (like 10,000). I know Michael did not comment on that aspect of the bug he found. Would you comment - is what he found having that effect (in addition to the others you listed)?

2) Aside from transferring them temporarily to fighters, how can we train bomber pilots in the Strafing skill?

Thanks in advance.

The bug Michael discovered was one that forced them to strafe. I believe that is what you are seeing.

Attack bombers set to Attack Ground or Naval targets <6000 will strafe and gain EXP. There is no training setting to increase Strafe, unless Michael made it possible to gain Strafe EXP from Ground Attack training. He would have to confirm this.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Here are the answers for all those with panties in a proverbial bunch...Nice catch guys!

Attack bomber functions as:

1. Altitude set <6000, attack altitude is "low level". >6k' they are treated as normal LB at altitude selected.

2. AB flights are split up into pairs (or two pairs against land targets) if low level (doctrinal)

3. Due to the order of combat, the pair bomb target at 100 and then strafe at 100.

4. Strafing by AB adds to flak suppression. Higher SKILL_STRAFE value (70+) increases suppression more.

5. Non-attack Level Bombers bombing at <1000 gain a higher fatigue from the firing Flak.

6. Bombing accuracy for non-attack LB attacking at <6000 with low morale or high disruption is lowered.

7. Bombing accuracy of LB against TF at <7000 is reduced. AB accuracy is increased <6000.

@ Mike Sholl
8. No experience/skill minimum to execute an attack by non-AB planes but the attack impacted as mentioned above.

From My main man Michael...
The main reason things don't seem to working is that the code that control what sort of an attack (strafe, bomb land, bomb TF) had a badly constructed IF statement that end up treating AB at low level as strafe attacks which use a different method of bomb accuracy.
The next code change will make the subtle change, apart from that the existing code reflects the above points.

Re your point 7., thanks for the insight. This changes my training routine for 4e bomb groups like the 308 that specialized in naval interdiction. I had been training them for low nav bombing, but it seems like high nav would be just fine if their performance falls off below 7k. Also kind of funny considering the panties wadded over 4e's bombing below 6k. Guess I'll have to transfer some pilots to strafing school and start over for those groups that had been training low.

Do these rules hold more or less true for the Navy Catalina's, Liberators, float planes, and Venturas flying patrol bombing missions? That is, they should train for high nav bombing since they aren't AB's?

[witpqs]

For fighters set to train on escort or sweep at 100ft they gain experience in strafing. I was hoping there would be some analogy for attack bomber pilots.

[USSAmerica]

So the "nerfed" Allied attack bombers were not designed to work that way to provide a bonus to the Japanese players?&nbsp; It's actually a bug that is going to be fixed?&nbsp; Someone is going to be very disappointed. &nbsp;[;)]

Good work to everyone who gathered the evidence to document this one and big thanks to Michael and Ian for the insight, answers, and fix.... even if we do now have to wait for the next patch.&nbsp; [:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

+1 Very well stated.

Personally, I was actually glad to see that the developers had found an issue in the attack bomber code and plan to fix it. I would much rather know my opponent has the option to use them when that time comes instead of being "handicapped" by them. It simply adds to the richness of the gaming experience.

IMHO AE is the best game of the genre and the developer support is next to no other in terms of effort. It's a shame not everyone on the forum can accept this notion.

I am grateful that the developers are as involved as they are. I am also grateful for the (mostly) positive forum community that continue to help each other and share their gaming experience.

And yes, I have no problem calling out somebody who seems to not enjoy the game, the support nor the community. There is absolutely no reason for the overall community to be intimidated by such nonsense.

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

Look, I don't care if you are a AFB or a JFB or whatever. This is important. It's like the bruhaha about land arty or Nuke Bombardments. Some of us are seeing something that took awhile to show up. We are asking the devs to take another peek at it because we feel Attack Bombers are not working as they should. If changes can be made, super. If not, then my next game will get messaged in the editor and I'll be producing B-25C's until 1945. Nothing to get our knickers in a bunch about. Does it take away from my game? Yup. Is it enough to make me stop playing? Not really. I'll come up with a work around, like wave hoppin' B-29's. What I love so much about this game is the flavor and 99% of it tastes great. Peace lovin' rant over.

it definetely is the best game of the genre, but it also isn´t free of bugs (how could a programme be free of bugs) and it´s also for sure not free of flaws. Aspects of the coordination (like always losing a couple of fighters per squadron on a sweep), altitude winning high time (confirmed flaw - even by the air team lead), artillery, supply movement, attack bombers. More to come as the years pass probably but who knows.

The PBEMs where Japan is trashed in 42 or early 43 sure are the exception IMO, so yes, I would say the game is Japanese biased. Why? Because the Japanese can do much more than in real life. And I´m ok with it because it´s not as biased that I would find it totally off. An example? 90% of all IJNAF naval attacks (Betty/Nell/Kate) are (better say can be) flown with torps. The Japanese bias has gone down dramatically compared to WITP IMO though.

I´m sure Mike enjoys the game, the community and the support. All three are great and you won´t find much better.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

My name was chosen because of the avitation pioneer Graf Zeppelin and not because of some Axis bias or because of a never completed carrier.
But yes, I prefer to play the Japanese side, I had most of their ships as models in my youth and have a personal attachment to most ships (that said I also realy love the Yorktown class carriers because of the same reasons)

Point is, I want the game to work within reason. Yamato pawning the Iowa is fun. Yamato always pawning the Iowa is not fun and would be completly out of whak. And I realy doubt the so called Jfbs would be happy if the game shows a clear bias to the Japanese side.And accusing the developers to having biases that way is even worse because they obviously tried to make a realy good game here.
Yes, Castor troy is indeed always ranting and complaining but in a constructive way. He points out game flaws but obviously with the intention to improve the experience for him and everyone else and thats good.Infact he acualy puts alot of work into his rants in is persistant too and thats a realy good thing imo.
But staying here and saying Best game evar or this game sucks accomplishes nothing. Saying the developers have bias because they want the Japanese to be better is fruitless also.

So, now please get this attack bomber thingie to work. I saw them jumping a convoy of my Marus and had a near heart attack when 15-20 hits on each where reported. Next day I scratched myhead and thought "uuuhm okay" after checking them and seeing they had around 15 sys damage and not much else.

oohh, ohhh, you could be leaning yourselve out of the window with that comment [;)] as I´m well known for my sarcasm and exegarations.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Here are the answers for all those with panties in a proverbial bunch...Nice catch guys!

Attack bomber functions as:

1. Altitude set <6000, attack altitude is "low level". >6k' they are treated as normal LB at altitude selected.

2. AB flights are split up into pairs (or two pairs against land targets) if low level (doctrinal)

3. Due to the order of combat, the pair bomb target at 100 and then strafe at 100.

4. Strafing by AB adds to flak suppression. Higher SKILL_STRAFE value (70+) increases suppression more.

5. Non-attack Level Bombers bombing at <1000 gain a higher fatigue from the firing Flak.

6. Bombing accuracy for non-attack LB attacking at <6000 with low morale or high disruption is lowered.

7. Bombing accuracy of LB against TF at <7000 is reduced. AB accuracy is increased <6000.

@ Mike Sholl
8. No experience/skill minimum to execute an attack by non-AB planes but the attack impacted as mentioned above.

From My main man Michael...
The main reason things don't seem to working is that the code that control what sort of an attack (strafe, bomb land, bomb TF) had a badly constructed IF statement that end up treating AB at low level as strafe attacks which use a different method of bomb accuracy.
The next code change will make the subtle change, apart from that the existing code reflects the above points.

thanks for the info, very much apreciated

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
thanks for the info, very much apreciated

Indeed, thanks Elf, looks good.

As well as that if you could rig it so attack bombers training offensive missions at 100' train strafing, same as fighters do, that'd be just kushty. [;)][:D]

[John Lansford]

I've set my attack bombers to fly at 15000' and I still see the strafing report, and reduced bomb hits.&nbsp;&nbsp; ISTM that attack bombers are strafing regardless of what altitude you put them at.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Here are the answers for all those with panties in a proverbial bunch...Nice catch guys!

Attack bomber functions as:

1. Altitude set <6000, attack altitude is "low level". >6k' they are treated as normal LB at altitude selected.

2. AB flights are split up into pairs (or two pairs against land targets) if low level (doctrinal)

3. Due to the order of combat, the pair bomb target at 100 and then strafe at 100.

4. Strafing by AB adds to flak suppression. Higher SKILL_STRAFE value (70+) increases suppression more.

5. Non-attack Level Bombers bombing at <1000 gain a higher fatigue from the firing Flak.

6. Bombing accuracy for non-attack LB attacking at <6000 with low morale or high disruption is lowered.

7. Bombing accuracy of LB against TF at <7000 is reduced. AB accuracy is increased <6000.

@ Mike Sholl
8. No experience/skill minimum to execute an attack by non-AB planes but the attack impacted as mentioned above.

From My main man Michael...
The main reason things don't seem to working is that the code that control what sort of an attack (strafe, bomb land, bomb TF) had a badly constructed IF statement that end up treating AB at low level as strafe attacks which use a different method of bomb accuracy.
The next code change will make the subtle change, apart from that the existing code reflects the above points.

Copied to note pad because memory is the second thing to go.[;)]
Thanks for the detailed explanation Ian and thanks for your sacrifices and service shipmate!

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

@ Mike Sholl
8. No experience/skill minimum to execute an attack by non-AB planes but the attack impacted as mentioned above.

From My main man Michael...
The main reason things don't seem to working is that the code that control what sort of an attack (strafe, bomb land, bomb TF) had a badly constructed IF statement that end up treating AB at low level as strafe attacks which use a different method of bomb accuracy.
The next code change will make the subtle change, apart from that the existing code reflects the above points.

Thank you Sir. I had that idea from Wilkerson, and due to the code problem it seemed a valid worry. I look forward to the next patch eagerly. [8D]

[Shark7]

As best I can tell, checking 'attack bomber' in the editor with a bomber that has forward firing guns results in the desired strafing attacks. That has been my experience.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So, now please get this attack bomber thingie to work. I saw them jumping a convoy of my Marus and had a near heart attack when 15-20 hits on each where reported. Next day I scratched myhead and thought "uuuhm okay" after checking them and seeing they had around 15 sys damage and not much else.

It sounds like those particular hits were .50 cal and maybe a heavy cannon hit thrown in (if the attack bombers were so equipped).

I find this result to be quite acceptable as multiple 0.50 cals really don't do much in the way of structural damage. However, it would be nice if we saw this sort of attack also destroy unamoured devices (deck mounted AA guns etc) and have some sort of flak suppression effect to reduce casualties and disruption on the follow up bombing attacks....

EDIT: oops... Looks like there is some flak suppression from strafing according to Elf. Just not visible unless you look closely - and totally wasted if there is no followup attack...

[bradfordkay]

"7. Bombing accuracy of LB against TF at <7000 is reduced. AB accuracy is increased <6000."

Is this ALL LB or just heavy LB? If all, it seems that my habit since UV of setting my medium bombers to 6000' for naval attack has been counterproductive in this version.