Facility Damage

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D]

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Exactly.

And here's another example from today's PBEM turn.

Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 23


Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 228

252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped? [&:]
I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one...

And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy.
Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more... [;)]

What exactly should be the damage inflicted when 23 Liberators drop bombs on a facility from 7,000' and encounter no resistance? Keep in mind a "hit" may not necessarily mean 1 bomb hit but more of a reflection of damage.

Perhaps the 4E service ratings should be bumped to Max...

Perhaps all aircraft should have their service ratings increased 1 or 2 points...

Perhaps airfield runway repair rates need to be adjusted...quicker repair of small runways...longer repair of large facilities - ie it is easier to repair dirt than reinforced concrete.

Or perhaps its simply fine as is...

[USSAmerica]

Perhaps airfield runway repair rates need to be adjusted...quicker repair of small runways...longer repair of large facilities - ie it is easier to repair dirt than reinforced concrete.

I thought this has already been in place. I could be wrong...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Perhaps airfield runway repair rates need to be adjusted...quicker repair of small runways...longer repair of large facilities - ie it is easier to repair dirt than reinforced concrete.

I thought this has already been in place. I could be wrong...

I think it is that way...but Perhaps it should be tweaked even more...or not.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Keep in mind a "hit" may not necessarily mean 1 bomb hit but more of a reflection of damage.

Reflection of a damage?
[&:]
Well, I always thought that a hit = a hit = a hit.
I am aware that different bombs can make a different damage, but a hit is a hit.

Every hit can make for a percentage of a damage point inflicted to facilities, but.. again...
if 23 Liberators drops 23 x 10 bombs in a carpet bombing... can you expect 110% of hits?

And this thread is somehow linked with he latest beta, because Michael decided to decrease the stacking limits exclusively for 4Es
that practically increases their availability.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I simply don't think JFBs are very fond of this change
and in view of their uber-efficiency it IMHO should be the other way round.
Increase the playability and reduce the number of invincible fighter-proof 4Es in the air.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: treespider
Keep in mind a "hit" may not necessarily mean 1 bomb hit but more of a reflection of damage.

Reflection of a damage?
[&:]
Well, I always thought that a hit = a hit = a hit.
I am aware that different bombs can make a different damage, but a hit is a hit.

Every hit can make for a percentage of a damage point inflicted to facilities, but.. again...
if 23 Liberators drops 23 x 10 bombs in a carpet bombing... can you expect 110% of hits?

English is a funny thing ... and in some games a "hit" is not a "hit" per se ...in the realm of role playing, D&D comes to mind wherein a character has "hit points" and when the character is "hit" he may receive damage in the form of "hit points", to which some may refer to that damage as "hits" even though it took a single "hit" to inflict the "hits"...so a "hit" is not necessarily a "hit". In this case perhaps the bomb "hit" inflicts multiple "hits" which may also refer to the amount of damage the bomb "hit" inflicted. So a 30 lb bomb may only be able to inflict 30 "hits" whereas a 500 lb bomb could inflict 500 "hits".

And this thread is somehow linked with he latest beta, because Michael decided to decrease the stacking limits exclusively for 4Es
that practically increases their availability.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I simply don't think JFBs are very fond of this change
and in view of their uber-efficiency it IMHO should be the other way round.
Increase the playability and reduce the number of invincible fighter-proof 4Es in the air.

And there are a fair number of HFB's out there as well...Historical Fan Boys....who give a rats ass about JFB's and AFB's

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: viberpol
if 23 Liberators drops 23 x 10 bombs in a carpet bombing... can you expect 110% of hits?

English is a funny thing ... and in some games a "hit" is not a "hit" per se ...in the realm of role playing, D&D comes to mind wherein a character has "hit points" and when the character is "hit" he may receive damage in the form of "hit points", to which some may refer to that damage as "hits" even though it took a single "hit" to inflict the "hits"...so a "hit" is not necessarily a "hit". In this case perhaps the bomb "hit" inflicts multiple "hits" which may also refer to the amount of damage the bomb "hit" inflicted. So a 30 lb bomb may only be able to inflict 30 "hits" whereas a 500 lb bomb could inflict 500 "hits".

OK, Treespider, I see your point. [:)]
But we're not talking about the abstract mechanism but the one in our (?) [;)] beloved game
where... if you have a "torpedo hit" in your combat report, you have a "torpedo hit" & not some abstract damage made of hits.

Those hits reported are transformed into some overall damage of the object after calculations of "damage value" based on many variables of a device... etc. (Sure, that's a simplification on my part).
But a hit was always a hit (the cannon shot, 250 kg bomb hitting your carrier or a torpedo, whatever).
I may be wrong, but I am under an impression that it was always the case... [;)]

So, again, how those Liberators can achieve 252 bomb hits out of 230 bombs dropped?

[USSAmerica]

Ah, but then what about the "hits" logged in the Combat Report for ASW attacks?  Many of those "hits" are "Near miss rattles sub" type "hits" and do no, or sometimes very little damage, while some of those "hits" are actual penetrating "hits" by the depth charge and do some to a great deal of damage.  (One of the main reasons why I love to watch the combat replay [;)] ) Not all "hits" are actually "hits".

I think what treespider was trying to state is that X number of "hits" listed in the Combat Report may not actually be what we are led to believe.  I am sure that 23 Liberators carrying 230 bombs would not actually strike an enemy base with 250+ bombs, but might score 250+ "hits" on an enemy base as logged in the Combat Report.  Don't be so sure you know exactly what those "hits" in the CR really represent. [;)]

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Ah, but then what about the "hits" logged in the Combat Report for ASW attacks?  Many of those "hits" are "Near miss rattles sub" type "hits" and do no, or sometimes very little damage, while some of those "hits" are actual penetrating "hits" by the depth charge and do some to a great deal of damage.  (One of the main reasons why I love to watch the combat replay [;)] ) Not all "hits" are actually "hits".

ASW is similar to bombs, torps and any other projectiles.

I think that whether some hit is a direct one, penetrating one, or a major one,
or some "near miss" inflicting only slight damage, that's a different thing.
But a hit is a hit. In AE if you have a device, a cannon bullet while straffing, a bomb, a depth charge and if it hits the target, then you have a hit.

The damage inflicted, as I stated before, is a different case and based on calculations of the device "weight".
IMHO you will never have 3 hits reported if there are only 2 depth charges dropped.

[inqistor]

Actually, I think, that "supply hits" are shown as percentage of all supply destroyed, not actual number of hits.

So, it is possible, that other "base hits" (except industry), are also percentages. So 600 hits on airfield, will be 600% of damage. It should be easier to damage smaller airfields (maybe 10-20 bomb hits for 100%), so probably against larger, the reported number of "hits" will be smaller.

Someone could make an experiment, to test this.

[Bradley7735]

Here's another combat report to mull over.....
27 twin engine bombers, a little over 100 bombs. Hit 87 times. against manpower...... I don't recall seeing results that good, even from the fabled 4-E bombers. Actual damage at the base was 38 oil and 5 refinery. (don't get me started on why the AI would damage industry that it will capture in a few days.....)

Anyway, that's some good bombing coming from 27 twin engine bombers.

[foliveti]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Actually, I think, that "supply hits" are shown as percentage of all supply destroyed, not actual number of hits.

So, it is possible, that other "base hits" (except industry), are also percentages. So 600 hits on airfield, will be 600% of damage. It should be easier to damage smaller airfields (maybe 10-20 bomb hits for 100%), so probably against larger, the reported number of "hits" will be smaller.

Someone could make an experiment, to test this.

My understanding is that this is not the case in AE. A hit is a hit and the number of supplies destroyed is based on the effectiveness of the device and the anti soft rating. I am not sure where I saw this, but it made sense. I applied the formula and decided a 500 lb bomb it would on the average cause a 125 supply point destruction.

Here is a link to the thread tm.asp?m=2619561&mpage=1&key=supply%2Chit&#2620467

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Exactly.

And here's another example from today's PBEM turn.

Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 23


Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 228

252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped? [&:]
I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one...

And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy.
Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more... [;)]

What exactly should be the damage inflicted when 23 Liberators drop bombs on a facility from 7,000' and encounter no resistance? Keep in mind a "hit" may not necessarily mean 1 bomb hit but more of a reflection of damage.

Perhaps the 4E service ratings should be bumped to Max...

Perhaps all aircraft should have their service ratings increased 1 or 2 points...

Perhaps airfield runway repair rates need to be adjusted...quicker repair of small runways...longer repair of large facilities - ie it is easier to repair dirt than reinforced concrete.

Or perhaps its simply fine as is...

If FOW was on, then the 'hits' would be randomuzed on the report by +/- 50% at the extremes.

And I can't believe that this is caused by allowing more 4E planes on a 7+ AF before it is overstacked.

[michaelm75au]

And a hit can be a hit WITHOUT causing any damage.

[Flying Tiger]

FOW

Of course every pilot reported every bomb hit. And no reason why a 'hit' on the airbase cannot also 'hit' the supply, etc...

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

And a hit can be a hit WITHOUT causing any damage.

Agreed. But this doesn't explain why there's more hits than bombs dropped
or that I'm pounded with such a high accuracy at times.
Today's results from the PBEM:

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 46
B-24J Liberator x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
MC-21 Sally: 13 destroyed on ground
L2D2 Tabby: 16 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-II Topsy: 5 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-I Topsy: 4 destroyed on ground

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
48 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled

Airbase hits 47
Airbase supply hits 19
Runway hits 556

And Torokina is a lvl 3 strip in a jungle.
Even if there was a clear weather and the airbase hits/supply hits are counted in 556 in general, that's 556 hits out of less than 700 bombs dropped. Just makes me wonder when the 4E bombing raids were so accurate IRL?

ORIGINAL: foliveti

My understanding is that this is not the case in AE. A hit is a hit and the number of supplies destroyed is based on the effectiveness of the device and the anti soft rating. I am not sure where I saw this, but it made sense. I applied the formula and decided a 500 lb bomb it would on the average cause a 125 supply point destruction.

Here is a link to the thread tm.asp?m=2619561&mpage=1&key=supply%2Chit�

Exactly. I've heard that somewhere as well.
Thanks Foliveti for that link.
And since we know that a hit is a hit is a hit resulted from a device...

EDIT

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger
FOW
Of course every pilot reported every bomb hit. And no reason why a 'hit' on the airbase cannot also 'hit' the supply, etc...

The real damage here at Torokina is 97/97 service/airfield... Of course it can be bigger than that [;)] (a bit... there are 3 points of damage to be inflicted) but...
...aren't the 4E bombers a bit too accurate? It's not a precision bombing by dive bombers, more like a carpet bombing with 70%+ accuracy?

[spence]

Before you nerf the Allied 4E bombers you might consider what sort of Bravo Sierra you presently award the IJA with this sort of result:

4 unopposed (manpower I think) raids by 10-12 Ki-51s each armed with 4 x 50 kg bombs on Changsha producing:

Resources reduced from 80 to 8
Heavy Industry reduced from 60 to 6
Light Industry reduced from 160 to 16
Manpower reduced from 12 to 2

(example from PBEM Combat Summary of one of the aforementioned raids:

12 Nates
11 Ki-51 Sonias

12 Manpower Hits
1421 Fires

bombing from 7000 ft)

If these results represent anything realistically achievable by less than a dozen Sonias then the JFBs have little to complain about if 100 x B-29 sink Honshu and everything on it.

BTW I have no problem with this result in my PBEM since we agreed to no House Rules. I do have a problem with a total of less than 200 x 50 kg bombs devastating every worthwhile target in a 2000 sq mile hex over the course of 4 days.

[vonTirpitz]

Spence, you do know that Changsha industries start out damaged at nearly those same levels in stock GC. Are you certain those raids did that damage? You would have had to spend an awful lot of supply to repair that city back to full strength.

Screen below is from Scenario 1, Turn 1:

ORIGINAL: spence

Before you nerf the Allied 4E bombers you might consider what sort of Bravo Sierra you presently award the IJA with this sort of result:

4 unopposed (manpower I think) raids by 10-12 Ki-51s each armed with 4 x 50 kg bombs on Changsha producing:

Resources reduced from 80 to 8
Heavy Industry reduced from 60 to 6
Light Industry reduced from 160 to 16
Manpower reduced from 12 to 2

(example from PBEM Combat Summary of one of the aforementioned raids:

12 Nates
11 Ki-51 Sonias

12 Manpower Hits
1421 Fires

bombing from 7000 ft)

If these results represent anything realistically achievable by less than a dozen Sonias then the JFBs have little to complain about if 100 x B-29 sink Honshu and everything on it.

BTW I have no problem with this result in my PBEM since we agreed to no House Rules. I do have a problem with a total of less than 200 x 50 kg bombs devastating every worthwhile target in a 2000 sq mile hex over the course of 4 days.