Ground bombing is borked, part II

[frank1970]

Maybe it also help to introduce "bombs" as a third supply item. This way players won´t drop three times the amount of bombs used by all countries together .

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo



And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.

How do you suggest calibrating the (non-linear) model?

I would first create the boundary conditions from RL results translated into game terms.

Lower Boundary condition: Using Iwo results. We know the bombing campaign was one year long. 4E's dropping standard 500 lb package. That is lvl 6 forts.

so for 500 lb bombs:
Lvl 0 = current hit probability (don't know this, but let's just call it bl%
Lvl 6 = 0.01 * bl% (so saying, 500 lb bombs are now too effective by 100x. I think that is a starting point.) You can use an inverse function to interpolate ... or if reals are being used a log. (but i think i remember that all the math in game is integer).

For bomb size, again all I have is that old engr assessment report on the Iwo fortifications where they thought the 1000 and particularly the 2000 lb DB dropped bombs had some penetration. I might start with a square function on bomb effect as a multiplier on the above to bring in the bomb size.

The difficulty in tuning here is that for both the 2000 and 10,000, the payloads are 1 bomb per plane. The 500 lb are between 10 - 40 / plane. So you model needs to take that into acct as each bomb is checked for a hit. Right now, B-29's drop SO many bombs that with the current hit% you get a LOT of effective hits, far more than what Iwo data suggests you should. When you go to those brit bombers, instead of 25 or so 500 lb, they carry 1x10,000. Again, not knowing the modelling, but it might be simply an artifact of a linear model (IF that is what is being used and we do not know). In which case, MAYBE going to an inverse function might give a more appropriate effect (understand when I say inverse, it might take an inverse square or cube or higher level)


The after action assessment that I read years ago was that the US engrs could not find any real impact of this one year bombing campaign upon the IJ positions. The forts were simply too strong for a 500 lb bomb to have any effect. The 1000 and 2000 bombs dropped during DDay did have effect as well as some of the BB salvos. The issue of course here will be hindsight: the allies did NOT know this. They wasted considerable effort on bombing, tying up these valuable units in a wasted campaign, that once we change the model, players won't use them in this wasted roll. But this is a secondary game balance issue.

It's a lethal area versus protection effect. If you want to knock out a pillbox with artillery, you need slow fire with heavy artillery to maximise accuracy and terminal effect. Light artillery, otoh, is much better than heavy against troops in the open.

[obvert]

I would first create the boundary conditions from RL results translated into game terms.

Lower Boundary condition: Using Iwo results. We know the bombing campaign was one year long. 4E's dropping standard 500 lb package. That is lvl 6 forts.

so for 500 lb bombs:
Lvl 0 = current hit probability (don't know this, but let's just call it bl%
Lvl 6 = 0.01 * bl% (so saying, 500 lb bombs are now too effective by 100x. I think that is a starting point.) You can use an inverse function to interpolate ... or if reals are being used a log. (but i think i remember that all the math in game is integer).

For bomb size, again all I have is that old engr assessment report on the Iwo fortifications where they thought the 1000 and particularly the 2000 lb DB dropped bombs had some penetration. I might start with a square function on bomb effect as a multiplier on the above to bring in the bomb size.

The difficulty in tuning here is that for both the 2000 and 10,000, the payloads are 1 bomb per plane. The 500 lb are between 10 - 40 / plane. So you model needs to take that into acct as each bomb is checked for a hit. Right now, B-29's drop SO many bombs that with the current hit% you get a LOT of effective hits, far more than what Iwo data suggests you should. When you go to those brit bombers, instead of 25 or so 500 lb, they carry 1x10,000. Again, not knowing the modelling, but it might be simply an artifact of a linear model (IF that is what is being used and we do not know). In which case, MAYBE going to an inverse function might give a more appropriate effect (understand when I say inverse, it might take an inverse square or cube or higher level)


The after action assessment that I read years ago was that the US engrs could not find any real impact of this one year bombing campaign upon the IJ positions. The forts were simply too strong for a 500 lb bomb to have any effect. The 1000 and 2000 bombs dropped during DDay did have effect as well as some of the BB salvos. The issue of course here will be hindsight: the allies did NOT know this. They wasted considerable effort on bombing, tying up these valuable units in a wasted campaign, that once we change the model, players won't use them in this wasted roll. But this is a secondary game balance issue.

Maybe it also help to introduce "bombs" as a third supply item. This way players won´t drop three times the amount of bombs used by all countries together .

Although it's really informative to hear about all of the Real War information, what we really need is a working compromise approximation of results for 4E and 2E bombing. The most important factor in any of this is to find something that will work in games.

Could we introduce some system that used forts and different bomb loads as ways to limit effectiveness against dug in units and bases?

Could fatigue be introduced as a way of limiting mission frequency?

Could there be a 'bomb supply' as a separate item like torps? Could it be at any base force with a limit dependent on airfield size and air support, and a monthly allocation that was in the realm of reality?

Try to think practically in game terms, and with all of the experience here there should be some very easy to implement solutions that wouldn't neutralize any one type of equipment, but would give more realistic results for bombing things on the ground.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Could we introduce some system that used forts and different bomb loads as ways to limit effectiveness against dug in units and bases?

Could fatigue be introduced as a way of limiting mission frequency?

From previous responses by various team members, we know that all of this is already in the model and a LOT more. [;)]

Tuning and/or model adjustments are being offered here. We have been told no new "development" is being, or will be, done; only tweaks, bug removal, and UI enhancements. Trying to keep this in the "tweak" dept or it will be put into the WitP AE II wish list which may or may not ever happen.

And we have to remember that this is +20 year old code at the heart of everything. The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent". [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent". [:D]

Looking at your avatar you're robbing the cradle, man! [:D] [8D]

[PaxMondo]

Hey, I have no idea who that is in the mirror shaving every morning.  I mean, who is that old fa__?  [:D]  But me, I'm still that 26yo with a 28" waist ....

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Hey, I have no idea who that is in the mirror shaving every morning.  I mean, who is that old fa__?  [:D]  But me, I'm still that 26yo with a 28" waist ....

WHEREAS THEE GUY IN THE MIRROR IS 62..., WITH AN 82-INCH WAIST. [:D][:D][:D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Hey, I have no idea who that is in the mirror shaving every morning.  I mean, who is that old fa__?  [:D]  But me, I'm still that 26yo with a 28" waist ....

WHEREAS THEE GUY IN THE MIRROR IS 62..., WITH AN 82-INCH WAIST. [:D][:D][:D]

64 with a 38-inch waist. I still hike in the Yosemite high country.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
From previous responses by various team members, we know that all of this is already in the model and a LOT more. [;)]

Tuning and/or model adjustments are being offered here. We have been told no new "development" is being, or will be, done; only tweaks, bug removal, and UI enhancements. Trying to keep this in the "tweak" dept or it will be put into the WitP AE II wish list which may or may not ever happen.

And we have to remember that this is +20 year old code at the heart of everything. The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent". [:D]

You are correct. Several key developers have also declared repeatedly that whoever tries to do "WitP II" it WONT be them. Once was enough. Gary Grigsby himself stated that he will never attempt such a beastie again.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
From previous responses by various team members, we know that all of this is already in the model and a LOT more. [;)]

Tuning and/or model adjustments are being offered here. We have been told no new "development" is being, or will be, done; only tweaks, bug removal, and UI enhancements. Trying to keep this in the "tweak" dept or it will be put into the WitP AE II wish list which may or may not ever happen.

And we have to remember that this is +20 year old code at the heart of everything. The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent". [:D]

You are correct. Several key developers have also declared repeatedly that whoever tries to do "WitP II" it WONT be them. Once was enough. Gary Grigsby himself stated that he will never attempt such a beastie again.

I've also heard people say "I'll never drink again!!!" [:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

My personal view is that much of the silliness could be removed by deleting the ground attack option of B-29s. I think that should be doable without messing too much with the code otherwise (hopefully).

this should be done for all aircraft types, give them only the missions they really flew and make the aircraft as effective in those missions they flew. Means making fighter bombers really fighter bombers, medium bombers for tactical missions, etc. This would of course also mean robbing the Japanese most of their torpedo bombers, all of their Army bombers on ASW or long range mass night attacks and so on. But as long as we go with the "the aircraft could do that" argument, I think a B-29 could drop bombs from 1000ft at any target. Just as a Betty could drop a torp. Now I wonder why we have never come over the thinking that it is normal to drop more torps in the first couple of months than Japan produced during the whole war but say a heavy bomber couldn´t drop bombs. [:'(]

Especially when I think about having only 500lb bombs for the US bombers because no squadron will ever reach the needed (WITP) experience in AE to be able to drop bigger bombs. Means ships in port are bombed by the Japanese either with 800kg bombs (that kill everything) or even better, they use torps but only by Allied 500lb bombs on the other hand.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

My personal view is that much of the silliness could be removed by deleting the ground attack option of B-29s. I think that should be doable without messing too much with the code otherwise (hopefully).

this should be done for all aircraft types, give them only the missions they really flew and make the aircraft as effective in those missions they flew. Means making fighter bombers really fighter bombers, medium bombers for tactical missions, etc. This would of course also mean robbing the Japanese most of their torpedo bombers, all of their Army bombers on ASW or long range mass night attacks and so on. But as long as we go with the "the aircraft could do that" argument, I think a B-29 could drop bombs from 1000ft at any target. Just as a Betty could drop a torp. Now I wonder why we have never come over the thinking that it is normal to drop more torps in the first couple of months than Japan produced during the whole war but say a heavy bomber couldn´t drop bombs. [:'(]

Especially when I think about having only 500lb bombs for the US bombers because no squadron will ever reach the needed (WITP) experience in AE to be able to drop bigger bombs. Means ships in port are bombed by the Japanese either with 800kg bombs (that kill everything) or even better, they use torps but only by Allied 500lb bombs on the other hand.

It's hard to get everything right, when in many cases you don't know why they did what they did. And if you know why and decide to model it, you need (usually unavailable) calibration data at more than one point. If you go with a single point of data and extrapolate linearly, you get death stars. The real world is so damn complicated!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: PzB

This is from Jap point of view and there are of course balancing issues to consider as well, but anyway, my advice would be to:
Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing
Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving)

You faced over 400 shooters and had 2 squads KIA? I don't see the beef. The hardware isn't mobile, and these were late-war DBs. Consider yourself lucky.

As PzB pointed out, it isn't the casualties, its the high numbers of the troops that are apparently being disabled subsequent to the air attacks. The result looks to be that the atoll will fall in a rather short period of time.

Iwo should be the example. What were the IJ troop strengths Iwo? ~20,000, right? US troop strength? V Amphib Corp with follow on troops ... what about ~100,000 or more. ~25000 US casualties ... +30 days to secure. The fundamental item being the bombardments had little effect. The landing faced well entrenched and supplied troops. A very tough struggle.

I don't support "nerfing" ground bombardment, but the fortification level factor in the alogrithm looks like it could use some tuning. Andy/PzB's recent turns with the landing on Christmas island are a perfect test bed.

To avoid confusion, let me state the goal here isn't to replicate the Iwo damage assesments. The game is NOT a simulation and the model doesn't work by modeling every aspect of combat perfectly to get the desired outcome. The goal is arrive at a similar overall result: with the full hammer of the USN hitting Christmas Island (lvl 6 forts and well supplied), it should take at least 30 days (and since this atoll is a lot larger than Iwo, you could easily argue that it should take more like 60 days) and require followon forces to take.

That the allies should prevail in this instance should not be seriously in doubt (assuming they do the job right, and Andy is doing it right I am sure). It's that even effectively bringing their big hammer to the party, it should take them TIME to secure their objective. Right now, it looks like the roadblock is going too easy with both players doing everything right. And the item that stands out in this are the high numbers of disabled troops.

If I was going to tune this, I would take the fortification factor in the bombing effectiveness and tweak it ~25%. Then run Andy/PzB's turns a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll see those disabled drop enough to where the island will hold out for 30 - 60 days.

Just my thoughts....

[sandman455]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

. . . The game is NOT a simulation and the model doesn't work by modeling every aspect of combat perfectly to get the desired outcome. The goal is arrive at a similar overall result: with the full hammer of the USN hitting Christmas Island (lvl 6 forts and well supplied), it should take at least 30 days (and since this atoll is a lot larger than Iwo, you could easily argue that it should take more like 60 days) and require followon forces to take.

That the allies should prevail in this instance should not be seriously in doubt (assuming they do the job right, and Andy is doing it right I am sure). It's that even effectively bringing their big hammer to the party, it should take them TIME to secure their objective. Right now, it looks like the roadblock is going too easy with both players doing everything right. And the item that stands out in this are the high numbers of disabled troops.

If I was going to tune this, I would take the fortification factor in the bombing effectiveness and tweak it ~25%. Then run Andy/PzB's turns a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll see those disabled drop enough to where the island will hold out for 30 - 60 days.

Just my thoughts....

Yes sir, I do believe you have summed up my thoughts I have had about some of the results from these most appreciated AAR's.
Just too much too fast.

I could go on for pages but I'm too clueless about the game in general and the capabilities of the assets involved to be of much help.
Yet here's just one instance of me scratching my head. . . [&:]

From PzB's AAR - there' simply no way I can conceive of getting that many carrier aircraft (with many coming from CVE's no less - utterly hopeless) marshalled above the island, all with their own ToT's on pre-recon targets in a 16 hour period. Plus, he's got LCU's on the ground?? They are now in a CaS mission unless you just don't care about hitting friendlies. CaS has always been a loiter type mission which is exactly the opposite of the mass strikes that was implemented by Andy day after day.

Who knows, maybe with months of planning with weeks of rehearsal. /shrug

But given what I know about carrier ops, I still think you would be looking at a goat rope before 10am and by 4pm the allied casualties/disruption would EQUAL the enemies because targets wouldn't look at all like the recon (smoke, fires, craters, movement, etc). If you kept sending in aircraft, they would just be throwing bombs everywhere. Honestly, either they loiter and figure out the situation with help from units on the ground, or they pickle their loads, frag some USA/USMC squads, and get back for dinner while there still is some. You tell me what's going to happen?

What about this idea: With friendlies in the target hex, your strikes convert to a "CaS" profile which would severely limit the number of aircraft that get to drop ordnance. You could send a strike of Y size, but only Y-X would attack with X being a random modified by the amount of friendlies engaged. More friendlies in hex - the more confusion - the bigger the X.

Random thoughts from the peanut gallery.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
As PzB pointed out, it isn't the casualties, its the high numbers of the troops that are apparently being disabled subsequent to the air attacks. The result looks to be that the atoll will fall in a rather short period of time.

Iwo should be the example. What were the IJ troop strengths Iwo? ~20,000, right? US troop strength? V Amphib Corp with follow on troops ... what about ~100,000 or more. ~25000 US casualties ... +30 days to secure. The fundamental item being the bombardments had little effect. The landing faced well entrenched and supplied troops. A very tough struggle.

To avoid confusion, let me state the goal here isn't to replicate the Iwo damage assesments. The game is NOT a simulation and the model doesn't work by modeling every aspect of combat perfectly to get the desired outcome. The goal is arrive at a similar overall result: with the full hammer of the USN hitting Christmas Island (lvl 6 forts and well supplied), it should take at least 30 days (and since this atoll is a lot larger than Iwo, you could easily argue that it should take more like 60 days) and require followon forces to take.

That the allies should prevail in this instance should not be seriously in doubt (assuming they do the job right, and Andy is doing it right I am sure). It's that even effectively bringing their big hammer to the party, it should take them TIME to secure their objective. Right now, it looks like the roadblock is going too easy with both players doing everything right. And the item that stands out in this are the high numbers of disabled troops.

If I was going to tune this, I would take the fortification factor in the bombing effectiveness and tweak it ~25%. Then run Andy/PzB's turns a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll see those disabled drop enough to where the island will hold out for 30 - 60 days.

Just my thoughts....

I disagree that Iwo RL results should be the calibration for anything. Iwo was Iwo. It was hollowed-out mountains. It may be Level 6 in the game, and so was this, but in RL it was mountians, not bunkers. Nothing man-made can come close.

I also don't know of any RL atoll invasion where the full CAGs of eight fleet carriers struck a port in one strike. The math done in the thread shows the tonnage of aimed bombs which hit in this attack. Not multi-engine area bombing. There is no RL data for this.

I don't have a problem with the numbers of disabled troops in these results. I actualy think the KIAs are way too small, from spalling and internal bunker frags at least, let alone concussion. Disabled troops recover. That there isn't time for that if the Allies press home their attack is an Oh Well--it's part of the model. If Andy accepts the disruption, supply usage, and his own KIAs to not let up, the defense can't automagically get better at the same time. Casualty care isn't overtly modeled in the game, but is secondarily through this mechanism. A fortified position ceaselessly fighting for survival isn't going to devote a lot of manpower to WIA care. The disabled have to wait.

As for the time needed to take an atoll, it's part of the game balance. Yes, some islands took longer in RL than in the game. But sortie rates, tides and currents, beach obstructions, and a thousand other variables aren't overtly represented in the game. The whole game has an optempo too fast for RL, on both sides. The Japanese amphib bonus is an abstraction too, but I don't see any JFBs calling for it to be removed.

Fort levels will always be a swag, with a lot of randoms in the mix. If I had a beef, it would be that fort levels can't be lowered exept by LCU action. Never by air attack. If you want to talk about something that needs to be changed we can go there. Also that Allies pilots never get napalm to use on forts. Also that CD emplacements pretty much never get destroyed by CAS either. Ahistorical, but hey, it's not a tactical engine.

[Andy Mac]

Just remember after 7 or 8 Days I have not secured Christmas Island with total air and naval superity and 6 Divs atackign basically 2.

Folks need to remember that all I have done is secure a badly damaged Air Field and Port the game is slightly all or nothing on combat as its a base based system but all I have done so far is secure the easiest part of the island (the flat bit witt the Air field

How long did it take the allies to secure the AF on Iwo is a better comparison what 10 - 12 days max ?? less....certainly the AF was repaired and in opweration in under 20 days

in my view 400 casualties is light with only 2 squads destroyed for what I brought

[PaxMondo]

Well, if Andy and the Moose think its ok, then I'll relent. Ok, the ground bombing is what it is. Back to my game .... [;)]

[obvert]

Ground bombing issues are not related simply to one or another situation. Multiple individual players have sited examples from many games where bombing ground units, airfields, ports, and industry have produced results that are linear rather than adjusted for numbers or previous damage. It seems most players who add to a forum like this seem to think it's not a well designed calibration.

We all know only 'tweaks' will be made by MichaelM to help refine the game. So what could be considered a tweak?

A tweak seems like any change that uses already existing systems to better model the real world limitations of the equipment used in the game. I have no idea about the coding and whether these things could be done, but I'm interested in finding some even minor improvements rather than no changes at all.

Here are some things that seem to be consistently mentioned issues:

Frequency of air bombardment - 2E and 4E bombers did not attack targets daily but can and do in game.

- possible tweak - increase fatigue or decrease morale for pilots, or increase fatigue on planes (more for 4E than 2E)

Night bombing - night bombers are relatively invulnerable to attack and hit far too often

- possible tweak - have night bombing use low ground skill, (which most players don't seem to train) AND increase fatigue on plane or pilot or both

Strength of bombing against ground units - units and bases can be destroyed by linear calibration of bombing effects, especially in clear hexes

- possible tweak - add +1 fort for bombardment by air for any unit not in move mode in a clear hex. Or, if it's possible, add +2 (or more) forts for anything (unit or AF or port) with over 50% damage. Or both.

Not sure if any of this is possible, but there is a problem, and since there are still changes being made, why not try to work through what might actually be possible.

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: obvert


Strength of bombing against ground units - units and bases can be destroyed by linear calibration of bombing effects, especially in clear hexes

- possible tweak - add +1 fort for bombardment by air for any unit not in move mode in a clear hex. Or, if it's possible, add +2 (or more) forts for anything (unit or AF or port) with over 50% damage. Or both.

Not sure if any of this is possible, but there is a problem, and since there are still changes being made, why not try to work through what might actually be possible.

I dont believe bombing against ground targets is out of kilter now v bases maybe I would agree but if anything CAS is nerfed as FB's die in droves if they try it.

[Andy Mac]

I think we need to be cvarefull when discussing Ground Bombing

CAS by DB'sFB'sMediums/Lights and Attack Bombers I dont believe is way off now if anything I think its light

CAS by 4E probably too powerfull

Airfield and Port Bombing seen results both ways too powerfull and too light - but probably a tendancy for too powerfull but then I would say the same about massed sweeps, unescorted bombers flying into massed CAP and any number of other issues witht he model.