B-17 supremacy

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by denisonh »

Historical examples only go so far in helping building a combat model. The simple fact that lack of an occurence does not mean that it could not happen.

What that means is that the IJN did not anchor CVs within B-17 range I (i.e they used Truk rather than Rabaul during the Solomons for that very reason). So by managing risk, they eliminated those potential occurences. That does not mean that it could not happen in the model.

An example would be to ask how many children are run over on interstates while playing hopscotch in the middle of those interstate highways. The answer of coursre is zero. That does not infer that it is safe to play hopscotch in the middle of an interstate highway. But if I was to model it, anyone playing hopscotch would get run over. One would argue without any historical examples the model is bad, but when modeling you have to account for situations that are for obvoius reasons are avoided because of the obviously bad consequences.

If you think it is safe to park your CVs at anchor within range of several B-17 squadrons with clear weather, no radar, light AA, and no land based CAP, then I question your judgement.

Also recommend you don't try playing hopscotch in the middle of an interstate highway either..........



ORIGINAL: btbw
ORIGINAL: denisonh

Plauisible results given the conditions:

Partly cloudy
No radar
No heavy AA
Negligible CAP
39 B-17s (that is a signioficant amount of ordanance)
Very large ships at anchor
(With nothing to really disturb the B-17s, they could make some really good runs)

The only "bug" is your decision to disband your CVs within range of significant Allied 4Es.
Really i dont understand how base can affect on ability of LB choose target and attack it individually.
Plese stop appeal to history when B-17 damage something. If you want compare with RL then provide example how B-17 attacks only flattops in port with evvectivness of dive bomber.
My opinion is game mechanics in that cause wrong and should distribute damages between ships with may be one flattop as main target and few close stayed or stayed on the way of raid.

@Jaroen
Targetting for raid of LB in port attack wrong. Despite on high accuracy during that bombing. Look into history facts - B-17 can hit AREA.

Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3668
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by vettim89 »

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: Richrd

I wonder how many times the Tirpitz was bombed before it finally rolled over. By the way, is it still there?
Some large parts of her are still there afaik.

Yes it is. Seeeeeeeeeee.............

Image
Attachments
tirpitzwrecktoday.jpg
tirpitzwrecktoday.jpg (24.49 KiB) Viewed 338 times
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, you have a point. I agree heavies are a bit too accurate. This is no secret just part of the game. It is not a bug though, just one more aspect of the game that you will have to get used to.
Accuracy to high yes, but it not main problem.
4E LB going on targets waves by waves.
See what happen:
Air raid of 4E LB going on port DIVIDED by waves of 1-6 planes. It ridicolus. Usable formation for level bombers was BOX. Only size and dimensions of box varied. No individual attacks for raid. It not Recon flight or Naval strike where 1-2-3 planes free to choose direction for attack and target. How you imagine 40 warbirds crossing course of each other? Or defensive shooting by gunners in chaotic flight of 40 potential victims? Never heard how friendly fire hit ships (from AAA), planes (from defense guns and even bombs)? It because you totally dont understand problem of organisation air raid.

1st wave 7 planes for example - leader see CV Soryu - dive for attack, scoring 1-2 hits.
Really? As i said before accuracy of level bombing was low so for gain 1 hit even in target like CV need more planes then just 6. My calculation is 12-13 planes per possible hit. All funboys who wanna flood here with lucky strike must first find how much planes flied without any hit and compare result. War statistic bad for funboys - 1% in naval strikes or 30% in area bombing (area, not pin-point).

2nd wave 6 planes - same target. 1-2 hits.
Well if 2nd wave follow leader strike it ok. For example recon found CV repairing in certain place, leader planned attack and direct raid via local orientirs. Above target just a few corrections and raid heading on attack course. Now only hig accuracy a problem cuz 1+2 wave must scoring only 1 hits, not 2-4.

3rd wave 5 planes - target CV Kaga. 1-2 hits.
Again too high accuracy. If we have deal with naval strike then ok - open place, good visibility, staying target, no flak, low fighter presence - it all add points to make successful hits. May be even 2, not 1. But port attack it different thing.
Not alone ship - so choosing target hard. Even so big target like CV. Bunch examples when pilots think that destroyer under their feet it battleship and merchant is fleet carrier. In port you can add camo on ships so bomber cannot divide ship from buildings. Some people remembering how Brest attacked by Brits and scoring hits. But do they remember these ships was masced and only weeks of recon + local intel provide them finally place to where target bombs. Same for Tirpitz - only few minutes left before smoke completely close target, but nazi dont got this chance. So how we see port attack it area attack with predefined coordinates of targetted ships. For LEVEL BOMBERS. Tactical bombers like Mitchells of course can strafe, skip-bomb, glide and level bombing everyting in port what they choose. Just because they have maneur for change targets and some surveliance ability over target.
B-17 have only bombsight and low turrets for obscure. And that mean when bomber incoming close to port - he maintain course on predefined target (with correction from visible marks like alone buildings, water tower etc). Yes, LEADER can redirect raid to one of biggest ship or in couple ships for better results. But leader CANNOT redirect sections on individual targets and distribute them between them. Also raid planning have predefined direction and heights of attacks. Broke plan? Got bombs on your plan. No one dont hear about smoke from bomb hits? PH fo example. Initial plan have TB first, DB after it so smoke from bomb hits dont hide targets. It was broken and result was as we know, but it can be better if signal from leader was definitely and correctly translated. And it attack bombers which can close to targets on distance when see what socks wearing captain. What will see LB from 13k feet if raid attack individually on port? First explosion near and in target - viola, smoke close target, good luck with pin-point targetting. I read about effectivness of level bombing - each attack on target lowering chance to hit area for next planes by 1.5 times. So in our example first wave (lol of course this attack cannot be done wave by wave but ok) can make 75% accuracy in 300000sqm or 1 bomb in target like CV, then next wave can make 50% accuracy and may be 1 bomb if dice roll was lucky. It all. All other hits can be random and spread around whole area. And of course NO INDIVIDUAL TARGETTING OF WAVES.

4th wave 5 planes - target CV Kaga, 1 hit if not 2 before.

5th and 6th waves 3+2 planes - target CV Shokaku, 1 hit.

rest of waves - target BB Kirishima and port, 1 hit to BB and 2 to port.

So in 1942 level bombers can divide targets and attacks them with inflicting at least 1 hit when they stayed in port. Many modern bomber pilots drool when see this result. I wonder why we need all this AGM, corrected bombs, huge amout of sensors, phase arrays if this mission can be easy solved by iron-bombing?
What must be in AAR in really?
1-3 hits to main target like CV Soryu (found by recon and targetted by formation fo B-17 with adeguate amount of bombs used on targets for score at least one hit... dammnit any air command officer have methodical papers where these digits printed and he plan attack guided by it)
1-2 hits to random ships (stayed near impact of bomb spot from raid)
2 hits or more to port (cuz it have SAME probability for hits, we remember ship stayed close to port so half of area around ship it harbour water, another pierce.)
And completely different from situation in game rigth now.
B-17 like dive bombers in their attack on Rabaul. Is it fair for wargame make unreal advantage for LB?

User avatar
YankeeAirRat
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:59 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by YankeeAirRat »

Dude,

Again the question I have is do you have a save of before and after? Have you tried to load the save from before and seen if the same situtation repeats? If it does then maybe you do have a bug. It not then maybe 4E level bombers are working as designed.

Again it sounds to me that you just suffered a series of bad dice rolls that lead to this situtation. Which I think everyone is talking about here. I would also let you know that in real life level bombers attacking large targets and even small targets in a port attack. Just look up the USS Sea Lion where Japanese bomber with a less accurate bomb site then the Norden sight were able to score hits on the submarine while it was docked at Cavite Naval Yard in the Philippines. I could also point out that the B-17's were able to sink a few U-boats in ports in places like Bremen, Cherboug, and even Kiel naval yards with massed raids that were just trying to hit the whole port. I would also humbly suggest that you give the US Strategtic Bombing Survey for both Europe and Pacific a read to see how USAAF level bombers were able to kill or heavily damage ships in ports during port attacks.
Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by denisonh »

When doing a data model of an actual event, you have to have a range of outcomes. This is a single outcome. IT IS PLAUSIBLE. Combat modeling involves a great deal of chaos and must account for outcomes that reflect ahistoric behavior (e.g. parking your carriers in a port within range of a large number of enemy 4e bombers).

As much as I refrain from attributional terms, you were less than thoughtful to do what you did. DON"T BLAME THE GAME.

Get over the fact you pulled a bonehead move, and move on.
ORIGINAL: btbw

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, you have a point. I agree heavies are a bit too accurate. This is no secret just part of the game. It is not a bug though, just one more aspect of the game that you will have to get used to.
Accuracy to high yes, but it not main problem.
4E LB going on targets waves by waves.
See what happen:
Air raid of 4E LB going on port DIVIDED by waves of 1-6 planes. It ridicolus. Usable formation for level bombers was BOX. Only size and dimensions of box varied. No individual attacks for raid. It not Recon flight or Naval strike where 1-2-3 planes free to choose direction for attack and target. How you imagine 40 warbirds crossing course of each other? Or defensive shooting by gunners in chaotic flight of 40 potential victims? Never heard how friendly fire hit ships (from AAA), planes (from defense guns and even bombs)? It because you totally dont understand problem of organisation air raid.

1st wave 7 planes for example - leader see CV Soryu - dive for attack, scoring 1-2 hits.
Really? As i said before accuracy of level bombing was low so for gain 1 hit even in target like CV need more planes then just 6. My calculation is 12-13 planes per possible hit. All funboys who wanna flood here with lucky strike must first find how much planes flied without any hit and compare result. War statistic bad for funboys - 1% in naval strikes or 30% in area bombing (area, not pin-point).

2nd wave 6 planes - same target. 1-2 hits.
Well if 2nd wave follow leader strike it ok. For example recon found CV repairing in certain place, leader planned attack and direct raid via local orientirs. Above target just a few corrections and raid heading on attack course. Now only hig accuracy a problem cuz 1+2 wave must scoring only 1 hits, not 2-4.

3rd wave 5 planes - target CV Kaga. 1-2 hits.
Again too high accuracy. If we have deal with naval strike then ok - open place, good visibility, staying target, no flak, low fighter presence - it all add points to make successful hits. May be even 2, not 1. But port attack it different thing.
Not alone ship - so choosing target hard. Even so big target like CV. Bunch examples when pilots think that destroyer under their feet it battleship and merchant is fleet carrier. In port you can add camo on ships so bomber cannot divide ship from buildings. Some people remembering how Brest attacked by Brits and scoring hits. But do they remember these ships was masced and only weeks of recon + local intel provide them finally place to where target bombs. Same for Tirpitz - only few minutes left before smoke completely close target, but nazi dont got this chance. So how we see port attack it area attack with predefined coordinates of targetted ships. For LEVEL BOMBERS. Tactical bombers like Mitchells of course can strafe, skip-bomb, glide and level bombing everyting in port what they choose. Just because they have maneur for change targets and some surveliance ability over target.
B-17 have only bombsight and low turrets for obscure. And that mean when bomber incoming close to port - he maintain course on predefined target (with correction from visible marks like alone buildings, water tower etc). Yes, LEADER can redirect raid to one of biggest ship or in couple ships for better results. But leader CANNOT redirect sections on individual targets and distribute them between them. Also raid planning have predefined direction and heights of attacks. Broke plan? Got bombs on your plan. No one dont hear about smoke from bomb hits? PH fo example. Initial plan have TB first, DB after it so smoke from bomb hits dont hide targets. It was broken and result was as we know, but it can be better if signal from leader was definitely and correctly translated. And it attack bombers which can close to targets on distance when see what socks wearing captain. What will see LB from 13k feet if raid attack individually on port? First explosion near and in target - viola, smoke close target, good luck with pin-point targetting. I read about effectivness of level bombing - each attack on target lowering chance to hit area for next planes by 1.5 times. So in our example first wave (lol of course this attack cannot be done wave by wave but ok) can make 75% accuracy in 300000sqm or 1 bomb in target like CV, then next wave can make 50% accuracy and may be 1 bomb if dice roll was lucky. It all. All other hits can be random and spread around whole area. And of course NO INDIVIDUAL TARGETTING OF WAVES.

4th wave 5 planes - target CV Kaga, 1 hit if not 2 before.

5th and 6th waves 3+2 planes - target CV Shokaku, 1 hit.

rest of waves - target BB Kirishima and port, 1 hit to BB and 2 to port.

So in 1942 level bombers can divide targets and attacks them with inflicting at least 1 hit when they stayed in port. Many modern bomber pilots drool when see this result. I wonder why we need all this AGM, corrected bombs, huge amout of sensors, phase arrays if this mission can be easy solved by iron-bombing?
What must be in AAR in really?
1-3 hits to main target like CV Soryu (found by recon and targetted by formation fo B-17 with adeguate amount of bombs used on targets for score at least one hit... dammnit any air command officer have methodical papers where these digits printed and he plan attack guided by it)
1-2 hits to random ships (stayed near impact of bomb spot from raid)
2 hits or more to port (cuz it have SAME probability for hits, we remember ship stayed close to port so half of area around ship it harbour water, another pierce.)
And completely different from situation in game rigth now.
B-17 like dive bombers in their attack on Rabaul. Is it fair for wargame make unreal advantage for LB?

Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat
I would also let you know that in real life level bombers attacking large targets and even small targets in a port attack.
Attacking targets one-by-one with diversed targets due their class? Or just released bombs on what see under feet?
Your links provide next info
LB had 30-40% accuracy in 1000 feet range from aim point (an it late planes like B-29 with better bombsights and radar targetting guided by high-expirienced pilots).
Carrier-based B had 50% accuracy in 250 feet range from aim point.

Please run game and compare what we have in WITPAE.
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

I would also let you know that in real life level bombers attacking large targets and even small targets in a port attack. Just look up the USS Sea Lion where Japanese bomber with a less accurate bomb site then the Norden sight were able to score hits on the submarine while it was docked at Cavite Naval Yard in the Philippines.

Please before post here facts take a look how accurate was japanese bombing.

http://ww2db.com/images/battle_invphilip6.jpg

Does it look like 2 ports hits lol?

P.S. Big difference for comparing Cavite attack and AAR - in AAR LB targetting 3 CV + BB. In Cavite japanese LB targetted NAVAL YARD and do alot hits (hard to miss so big area) and also got 2 hits in SS and MSW. BUT best target like AS Pigeon was untouched just because stayed some far then SS and bomb spot dont laying on her lol.
User avatar
YankeeAirRat
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:59 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by YankeeAirRat »

I am sorry but your link doesn't work.

Are you trying to post this image?
Image
or this one?
Image
or was it this one?
Image

Again the USS Sealion was heavily damaged in the opening day raids against Cavite Naval Base by Japanese land based bombers.

You seem to find it almost impossible that a ship docked in a port can be destroyed by a level bomber. Yet that is what happened in real life in numerous locations. Whether that level bomber is a TBD Devestator, a Nakajima B5N, A B-25, a B-17, Do-17, Ju-88, DH.98 or an Avro Bomber Mark 1. Ships of all size from Battleships down to little yard tugs were destroyed by level bombers coming through in massed waves dropping bombs over a port while attempting to destroy/wreck that port.

Again for the third time. Do you have a save from before and a save from after this incident? If so have you run the save from before to see if the "dice" roll the other way for you and don't let the B-17's to destroy your docked carriers in a port?

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by LoBaron »

You guys still feed Idiot troll? Changing word order not suspicious you make?
Using word "fair" in wargame not also?

Not waste energy reccommend I, but owns to his each... [:'(]
Image
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

I am sorry but your link doesn't work.
Yes, thank you.
So we see 2 hits in port from 54 planes? Ok make it 3 if 40 B-17 make 2 hits.
So what target devastated by hits easy and what target only got 2 hits? Let look:
2 hits - SS and MSW, complete disaster area target Naval Yard, no one hits in biggest and best target AS in port - in Real Life
8 hits in best targets, 2 hits in port - WITP AE
Result of dive bombers seeking ships but not level-bombers.

Visual Difference

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4183/cavitevsaar.png

User avatar
YankeeAirRat
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:59 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by YankeeAirRat »

Dude,

Your not reading the combat report the right way. The bombers were on a port attack. Your ships were docked in port. Ergo, they were valid targets to be attacked by the bombers in accordance with the port attack routine. All ships docked in port are attacked at some level by aircraft attacking that port. It wasn't like your ships were in a task force in the same location. Rather the game treats ships disbanded in port as being tied up to the pier and basically being extensions of the port. I can tell this since the combat report you posted way back in page 1 states that you also lost 5 men and some supplies in the attack as well. The lost of men only happens when they attack a port and not a task force. So that means to me, that a massive wave of bombers came across the port and just unloaded on the port. It just happened to be that the way they flew a couple vics of bombers over flew your ships in the abstracted yards in the port and were heavily damaged as bombs all fell around them.
Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

Dude,

Your not reading the combat report the right way. The bombers were on a port attack. Your ships were docked in port. Ergo, they were valid targets to be attacked by the bombers in accordance with the port attack routine. All ships docked in port are attacked at some level by aircraft attacking that port. It wasn't like your ships were in a task force in the same location. Rather the game treats ships disbanded in port as being tied up to the pier and basically being extensions of the port. I can tell this since the combat report you posted way back in page 1 states that you also lost 5 men and some supplies in the attack as well. The lost of men only happens when they attack a port and not a task force. So that means to me, that a massive wave of bombers came across the port and just unloaded on the port. It just happened to be that the way they flew a couple vics of bombers over flew your ships in the abstracted yards in the port and were heavily damaged as bombs all fell around them.
Dude, you dont understand. LB attacked not port but ships. And they attacked not ALL ships docked by like in nice carrier battle biggest and best targets. It what make port attacks unadequate.
User avatar
noguaranteeofsanity
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by noguaranteeofsanity »

ORIGINAL: btbw

Dude, you dont understand. LB attacked not port but ships. And they attacked not ALL ships docked by like in nice carrier battle biggest and best targets. It what make port attacks unadequate.

The B-17s were definately flying port attack, they scored hits on the port and it says 'Port Attack' in the breakdown of attacking aircraft.

But basically what you seem to be saying, is that playing as Japan, you would prefer your first turn attack on Pearl Harbor left the 'biggest and best' ships alone and instead attacked the far less important targets such as PT Boats and Destroyers? Or would that simply mean the start of another thread by you, explaining how port attacks are borked? You do realise you cannot have it both ways? They are both port attacks, after all.

Finally, ask yourself this question, if you were in command of those B-17s, would you attack the port itself, or the half-dozen capital ships that were either anchored or docked in Noumea Harbour? Which do you think would be the more important target?
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity
ORIGINAL: btbw

Dude, you dont understand. LB attacked not port but ships. And they attacked not ALL ships docked by like in nice carrier battle biggest and best targets. It what make port attacks unadequate.

The B-17s were definately flying port attack, they scored hits on the port and it says 'Port Attack' in the breakdown of attacking aircraft.

But basically what you seem to be saying, is that playing as Japan, you would prefer your first turn attack on Pearl Harbor left the 'biggest and best' ships alone and instead attacked the far less important targets such as PT Boats and Destroyers? Or would that simply mean the start of another thread by you, explaining how port attacks are borked? You do realise you cannot have it both ways? They are both port attacks, after all.

Finally, ask yourself this question, if you were in command of those B-17s, would you attack the port itself, or the half-dozen capital ships that were either anchored or docked in Noumea Harbour? Which do you think would be the more important target?
Level bombers above PH? Something new each day!
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: btbw

Level bombers above PH? Something new each day!


Actually there were 54 "level bombers" above PH on 12/07/41! Who do you think were dropping those modified 16" shells?
User avatar
noguaranteeofsanity
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by noguaranteeofsanity »

ORIGINAL: btbw

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity
ORIGINAL: btbw

Dude, you dont understand. LB attacked not port but ships. And they attacked not ALL ships docked by like in nice carrier battle biggest and best targets. It what make port attacks unadequate.

The B-17s were definately flying port attack, they scored hits on the port and it says 'Port Attack' in the breakdown of attacking aircraft.

But basically what you seem to be saying, is that playing as Japan, you would prefer your first turn attack on Pearl Harbor left the 'biggest and best' ships alone and instead attacked the far less important targets such as PT Boats and Destroyers? Or would that simply mean the start of another thread by you, explaining how port attacks are borked? You do realise you cannot have it both ways? They are both port attacks, after all.

Finally, ask yourself this question, if you were in command of those B-17s, would you attack the port itself, or the half-dozen capital ships that were either anchored or docked in Noumea Harbour? Which do you think would be the more important target?
Level bombers above PH? Something new each day!

Ever heard of the B5N Kate?

From "US Navy Report of Japanese Raid on Pearl Harbor", 15 Feb 1942, Cincpac File No. A16-3/Serial 0479:
"The so-called "lull" in the air raid was terminated by the appearance over the Fleet of considerable numbers of high-altitude horizontal bombers, crossing and recrossing their targets from various points of the compass. Enclosure (B) is a photograph of one group of horizontal bombers flying at 12,000 feet and taken shortly before attacking. Damage from this attack was serious. Some of the bombs dropped were converted fifteen or sixteen inch shells; they penetrated with about 20-inch holes, low order detonation, and very little flame..... An estimated total of 30 horizontal bombers, including nine planes which engaged in earlier attacks, participated in Phase III. The heavy ships bore the brunt of these attacks."

So again, if the port attack routine was modified according to your wishes you outlined above, with planes less likely to attack the 'biggest and best' ships in port and instead concentrate on presumably less important ships, or the port itself, it would most likely effect both sides and all port attacks, not just Allied B-17 raids on Japanese ports. Do you really want to cripple your own forces in this fashion? Or just your opponent?

While again, you are complaining that the bombers attacked the biggest and best targets, but ask yourself what would you do in their shoes or expect your own forces to do? Ignore the enemy carriers and battleships to drop a few bombs into the port facilities? Or try to do as much damage as possible to the enemy force?
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

Attack bombers have much more abilities for attack spotted targets and they can change formation or even go alone on target. Try on B-17 maintain speed, course and climb/incline so easy as on Kate.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by EUBanana »

Inconceivable!
Image
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by Puhis »

In this game level bomber is a level bomber regardless of plane size or number of engines. You do have a valid point, game should handle different type of bombers better. Tactical bombers are pretty much useless in historical close support role, because they are just bombers with small bombload. Heavy bombers are overpowered because they have biggest bombload without most of the real life drawbacks.

But it's not a bug, it's limitation of the game engine. They are not going to change the game engine.
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: B-17 supremacy

Post by btbw »

This problem can be easy solve with Maneur characteristic of plane for example.
Ability for hit ships during port attack can vary from Maneur + mods like DL, crew exp, defense etc.
Just need tweak it and we never seen again how LB dive separately on all flattops in port.
All heavy bombers have M<=10.
Also class of airplane can affect on ability for attack ships.
Have good maneur and attack/dive/TB then LEVEL BOMBING in port attack can try as much as possible ships parked here.
You huge and slowpoke HB? Drop your bomb and pray it hurt someone. Maybe one of best targets will be hitted but dont all of them definitely.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”