The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (A)

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Lovely! Well done! [&o]

6/15 hits on your Kamikazes too. A respectable ratio. Why were the B6N2a aircraft carrying bombs? Range?

Range and HQ placement both. I had to disperse in case the big bad bombers decided to diversify and take a day off from pounding Bangkok. I had planes launching from about six different bases. Probably a good thing in the end since none of the 90 strike planes from Chumpon flew at all. It could have been a much better day as there are still about 50 ships out there.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Well, that's a nice turn for Japan. All those transports without air cover and at your bombers' mercy. Not a common sight for Japan in 1945. And nice for the VPs. I'm sure Canoerebel would like the turn back.

The LSI(L) are especially nice to sink outright, but those big ocean liner xAP are a hefty VP count too. The Empress Asia is one of the big ones. See how that kami hit treats her. [;)]

[obvert]

In the air up North the Ki-83 groups continue to sweep Allied bases and this time meet not only the old Wilcats and Corsairs but also some P-51D. A good result against this CAP again though, getting about 1.5:1.

Interesting he has Mustangs low at 10k and the old Corsairs up high. I’m glad for that really since the Stangs could have gotten a decent dive on the sweepers. Looks like Dan is experimenting with his own version of low layered CAP. Nice!

[font="Trebuchet MS"][/font]
[font="Trebuchet MS"]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on Uruppu-jima , at 130,52

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 43 NM, estimated altitude 43,530 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-83 x 32

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 49
F4F-4 Wildcat x 25
FM-2 Wildcat x 23
F4U-1 Corsair x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-83: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang: 3 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Ki-83 sweeping at 41530 feet

CAP engaged:
VBF-3 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 28300.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
VBF-5 with FM-2 Wildcat (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters to 34700.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
VBF-6 with FM-2 Wildcat (0 airborne, 13 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 34700.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
VMF-225 with F4U-1 Corsair (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36800 , scrambling fighters to 36000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
VMF-311 with F4U-1 Corsair (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
506th FG/457th FS with P-51D Mustang (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 41900.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
506th FG/458th FS with P-51D Mustang (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 41900.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
506th FG/462nd FS with P-51D Mustang (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 41900.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/font]

[obvert]

The Allies continue to bombard in Burma, ostensibly trying to use up supply and probably also get direct recon on which units are moving where. It comes at a price though, as every day the losses include numerous destroyed devices. Today it’s 8 VPs worth.

This kind of stuff adds up, and it can’t be good for his pools at this point either, but who knows. There hasn't been a constant drain for some months on the Commonwealth troops as the bulk of fighting has been up North. Arty guns are never plentiful for the Allies, though.
[font="Trebuchet MS"][/font]
[font="Trebuchet MS"]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Pegu (55,53)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 9724 troops, 259 guns, 433 vehicles, Assault Value = 3366

Defending force 124842 troops, 1180 guns, 639 vehicles, Assault Value = 3133

Japanese ground losses:
143 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 29 (17 destroyed, 12 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (7 destroyed, 20 disabled)

Assaulting units:
7th Indian Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/font]

[obvert]

The landings came in at Para as well this turn, and it looks like the Allies faced the winter rules, lack of prep and some tough CD guns coming ashore. Not much left in fighting shape there. Still, they’ll repair eventually, Dan will land more, and the base will fall, but happy to see any kind of delays in these peripheral ops as the clock keeps ticking.

[font="Trebuchet MS"][/font]
[font="Trebuchet MS"]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pre-Invasion action off Paramushiro-jima (137,47) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

86 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
BB Valiant, Shell hits 1
LCI(G)-528
LCI(G)-469
LCI(G)-468
LCI(G)-465
LCI(G)-462
LCI(G)-439
LCI(G)-406
LCI(G)-405
LCI(G)-401
LCI(G)-398
LCI(G)-397
LCI(R)-337
LCI(R)-231
LCI(R)-230
LCI(R)-226
LCI(R)-73
LCI(R)-72
LCI-788
LCI-789
LCI-793
DD Van Galen
LCI-790

Japanese ground losses:
384 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 33 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
72 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Wake Coastal Gun Battalion firing at BB Valiant
BB Valiant firing at Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
LCI(G)-528 fired at enemy troops
LCI(G)-469 fired at enemy guns
LCI(G)-468 fired at enemy troops
LCI(G)-465 fired at enemy guns
LCI(G)-462 fired at enemy guns
LCI(G)-439 fired at enemy troops
LCI(G)-406 fired at enemy guns
LCI(G)-405 fired at enemy troops
LCI(G)-401 fired at enemy guns
LCI(G)-398 fired at enemy guns
LCI(G)-397 fired at enemy guns
LCI(R)-337 fired at enemy guns
LCI(R)-231 fired at enemy troops
LCI(R)-230 fired at enemy troops
LCI(R)-226 fired at enemy troops
LCI(R)-73 fired at enemy troops
LCI(R)-72 fired at enemy guns
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 4,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Paramushiro-jima (137,47)

TF 194 troops unloading over beach at Paramushiro-jima, 137,47

Allied ground losses:
3243 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 548 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 597 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 238 (0 destroyed, 238 disabled)
Vehicles lost 295 (2 destroyed, 293 disabled)

15 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 6th Infantry Div
13 troops of a USA Rifle Squad 44 lost in surf during unload of 6th Infantry Div /3
Motorized Support lost from landing craft during unload of 6th Infantry Div /5
Motorized Support lost overboard during unload of 58th (Sep) Infantry Rgt /4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Paramushiro-jima (137,47)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4225 troops, 89 guns, 176 vehicles, Assault Value = 104

Defending force 10768 troops, 392 guns, 303 vehicles, Assault Value = 75

Allied ground losses:
120 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 13 (11 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Assaulting units:
Kitachishima Fortress
56th Div /1
1st Amphibious Bde /1
12th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
6th JNAF AF Unit
31st Special Base Force /2
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
Wake Coastal Gun Battalion
7th Area Army
19th RF Gun Battalion
2nd Air Fleet /2
14th Base Force /1

Defending units:
158th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
6th Infantry Div /1
37th (Sep) Infantry Rgt /6
1st Medium Regiment
4th Field Artillery Battalion
58th (Sep) Infantry Rgt /8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/font]

[obvert]

There was a question in another AAR recently about kami bomb loads. Although the Frances can carry a torpedo, for kami use they seem to carry the normal bomb load.

If all of those bombs account for an individual hit I’d prefer this since each one would be a new dice roll and potentially severe damage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Tavoy at 53,61

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 2 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 0 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 29
P1Y2 Frances x 18

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x P1Y2 Frances flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Mergui at 53,62

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 2,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 28
P1Y2 Frances x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 11 destroyed

Allied Ships
LSI(L) Brisbane Star, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire
LSI(L) Dunedin Star
xAP Esperance Bay
xAP Empress ' Asia, Kamikaze hits 1
AP Thomas Jefferson, Kamikaze hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
xAP Kelantan
DE Holt
DE Hodges, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy damage
LSI(L) Glengyle

Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x P1Y2 Frances flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

[obvert]

Ground bombing continues on Hokkaido with a pretty good day nailing the Canadian 16th Brigade and a few armoured units.

[font="Trebuchet MS"][/font]
[font="Trebuchet MS"]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on 16th Canadian Brigade, at 122,53 , near Kushiro

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 36

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
153 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x P1Y2 Frances bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 16th Canadian Brigade, at 122,53 , near Kushiro

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 45
A6M8 Zero x 39
D4Y4 Judy x 41
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 30

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
114 casualties reported
Squads: 19 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 1000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 800 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 6th Ranger Battalion, at 122,53 , near Kushiro

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 45
B5N2 Kate x 33
B6N2 Jill x 45
B6N2a Jill x 36
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 79

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
263 casualties reported
Squads: 33 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
33 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 3rd NZ Armoured Sqn , at 123,52 , near Kushiro

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 74

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
296 casualties reported
Squads: 37 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 17 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 22 (10 destroyed, 12 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-49-IIb Helen bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 763rd Tank Battalion, at 123,52 , near Kushiro

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 2
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 33
Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy x 20

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
Vehicles lost 34 (20 destroyed, 14 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 112th Cavalry Regiment, at 123,52 , near Kushiro

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 4
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 20

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
100 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 9 (8 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-49-IIb Helen bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/font]

[Lokasenna]

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: obvert

There was a question in another AAR recently about kami bomb loads. Although the Frances can carry a torpedo, for kami use they seem to carry the normal bomb load.

If all of those bombs account for an individual hit I’d prefer this since each one would be a new dice roll and potentially severe damage.

SNIP

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

That's good to know Obvert, thanks.

It's one more good reason to keep torpedo armed aircraft dedicated to conventional strikes. I'm curious as to how 2E's like the Helen with 4x250kg bombs would compare against something like the D4Y4 with 1x800kg bomb...

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

How do we know?

What makes the single boom? An accumulation of the bomb load? Is airframe size added in? Or is the boom simply a one size fits all, so bomb size doesn't matter?

I remember someone (mind_messing?)saying the Judy-C works well as a kami. It carries no bomb load at all. So what's the boom there?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

How do we know?

What makes the single boom? An accumulation of the bomb load? Is airframe size added in? Or is the boom simply a one size fits all, so bomb size doesn't matter?

I remember someone (mind_messing?)saying the Judy-C works well as a kami. It carries no bomb load at all. So what's the boom there?

All of the hints we've received are that it's probably based on the max load of the plane (and possibly things like durability) and not so much (if at all) on the payload actually being carried. While we don't have it explicit, that's where all the arrows (and maybe there's just one arrow) point. Alfred mentioned said arrow recently as well.

Edit: I've also never seen messages about the bombs exploding, and while that wouldn't have to be the case, given the damage message paradigm in the game I would be surprised if the effects of the bombs exploding was included but the messages were excluded.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

How do we know?

What makes the single boom? An accumulation of the bomb load? Is airframe size added in? Or is the boom simply a one size fits all, so bomb size doesn't matter?

I remember someone (mind_messing?)saying the Judy-C works well as a kami. It carries no bomb load at all. So what's the boom there?

All of the hints we've received are that it's probably based on the max load of the plane (and possibly things like durability) and not so much (if at all) on the payload actually being carried. While we don't have it explicit, that's where all the arrows (and maybe there's just one arrow) point. Alfred mentioned said arrow recently as well.

Edit: I've also never seen messages about the bombs exploding, and while that wouldn't have to be the case, given the damage message paradigm in the game I would be surprised if the effects of the bombs exploding was included but the messages were excluded.

That seems reasonable. So max load being accounted for, what about recon planes or fighters that have no bomb load available? Maybe just durability then? So a Judy-C hit would be relatively ineffective if only taking into account durability.

If it is max load then all 2E bombers would have the biggest size of boom. I guess the Emilys would be a bigger boom but pretty unlikely to hit.

[adarbrauner]

Are you researching/developing jets? when are they supposed to enter service, we are already in the second semihalf of 1945?

Are you building the fast electric submarines? have tried them in combat?

[ny59giants]

Allied artillery is usually out gunned and out ranged by Japanese guns. According to John E (Symon/JWE) the Allies relied heavily upon FB being used in ground attack roles, but that wasn't modeled as well as he would like in AAE and even in his DBB mods. I was asking him a series of questions years ago about this when he was helping John 3rd and I move our mods from stock to DBB based. He suggested that Allies use their CD gun units more in front lines as they have the best guns.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: obvert




How do we know?

What makes the single boom? An accumulation of the bomb load? Is airframe size added in? Or is the boom simply a one size fits all, so bomb size doesn't matter?

I remember someone (mind_messing?)saying the Judy-C works well as a kami. It carries no bomb load at all. So what's the boom there?

All of the hints we've received are that it's probably based on the max load of the plane (and possibly things like durability) and not so much (if at all) on the payload actually being carried. While we don't have it explicit, that's where all the arrows (and maybe there's just one arrow) point. Alfred mentioned said arrow recently as well.

Edit: I've also never seen messages about the bombs exploding, and while that wouldn't have to be the case, given the damage message paradigm in the game I would be surprised if the effects of the bombs exploding was included but the messages were excluded.

That seems reasonable. So max load being accounted for, what about recon planes or fighters that have no bomb load available? Maybe just durability then? So a Judy-C hit would be relatively ineffective if only taking into account durability.

If it is max load then all 2E bombers would have the biggest size of boom. I guess the Emilys would be a bigger boom but pretty unlikely to hit.

You are starting to go off the rails here.

Lokasenna is correct about it being a single hit but remember that in AE, a hit in any kind of combat is merely the first threshold which needs to be passed before any consideration is given to what damage might result from the action. Some of the speculation which has been posted on this page is quite misleading when considered in the context of reverse engineering the code but from the perspective of how it impacts the player, taking into account the variables which the player can manipulate, no real harm results.

Suggest you all go back to pages 130 and 131 of Mike Solli's AAR and read very closely my posts

#3899
#3901
#3904
#3912

and note what I didn't say as well as what I said.[;)]

The preoccupation, which I see from several players, about the size of the boom is really quite pointless. As Shakespeare would have said, "therein lies madness". Achieving a kamikaze hit is all that should concern players.

Alfred

[mind_messing]

Quote from the last relevant post from Alfred made in Mike's AAR.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by "bomb load"

For a subject which exercises so much the minds of players, both the manual and the devs over the years have been very reticent to provide much guidance. I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Kamikaze air operations in AE are very similar to what transpired in classical WITP. The two main changes made for AE were::

(a) fix the bug which saw kamikaze aircraft attack land bases (this fix was one of the last classical WITP bug fixes), and

(b) improve the chances of a kamikaze strike penetrating Allied CAP. This mainly involved addressing the classical WITP problem of late war uber CAP neutering any kind of air strike.

IRL the damage from kamikaze aircraft came not just from their ordnance but also from their fuel and mass of airframe. If AE were a simulation this would require every single different eligible aircraft model having its mass + fuel + specific mission ordnance factored into the kamikaze combat algorithm. For each plane which hits. Instead, partly because that level of detail is not tracked, in AE this is all abstracted down to a relatively few inputs into the kamikaze combat algorithm.

What really matters for the abstraction is whether a kamikaze hit is achieved. That means first successfully getting through Allied CAP (the primary Allied defence) and flak. A kamikaze plane which hits gets only 1 single hit, not multiple hits to reflect ordnance + fuel + mass. The damage inflicted (don't forget there are always die rolls in Grigsby algorithms) is determined from the type of hit which is abstracted. There is no differentiation made between different aircraft models of the same aircraft type. Except for determining the type of abstracted hit to be applied, aircraft models without a bomb are not discriminated against compared to those aircraft models of the same aircraft type with a bomb.

Alfred

My reading of this is that there are different "types" of hit (with the usual randomness) for F, FB, LB and so on, and are irrespective of the plane model.

That's very interesting, if I've read it correctly? Or do I need to go get another coffee and some lunch?

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

How do we know?

What makes the single boom? An accumulation of the bomb load? Is airframe size added in? Or is the boom simply a one size fits all, so bomb size doesn't matter?

I remember someone (mind_messing?)saying the Judy-C works well as a kami. It carries no bomb load at all. So what's the boom there?

I don't think it was me - don't recall using the Judy-C in kami attacks at any rate.

You get a respectible level of damamge from every kami hit, regarding if it's big or not.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Are you researching/developing jets? when are they supposed to enter service, we are already in the second semihalf of 1945?

Are you building the fast electric submarines? have tried them in combat?

I'm not going to be making any jets unless something really changes in the progress of this game. My last research project is the Ki-94, but that has no factories repaired and only 30 researching. Just a dart throw in case the game is still going in nov-dec 45 that it might move up a month or two.

I will continue to build some subs. I've had success with those before. This game I've not had much good happen in the last six months or so. I'll report if I do, you can be sure. [;)]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Allied artillery is usually out gunned and out ranged by Japanese guns. According to John E (Symon/JWE) the Allies relied heavily upon FB being used in ground attack roles, but that wasn't modeled as well as he would like in AAE and even in his DBB mods. I was asking him a series of questions years ago about this when he was helping John 3rd and I move our mods from stock to DBB based. He suggested that Allies use their CD gun units more in front lines as they have the best guns.

Right. I think it is some of how it's modelled, but also some of the Japanese RnD in game making it difficult for the Allies to put their best fighters on a ground attack mission, have pilots with the right skills developed and have an enemy much less well supplied due to the ineffectiveness of Allied submarines compared to the war.

I also don't think a lot of the big siege guns would have ever left Manchuria in the war. We can put them where we want.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



All of the hints we've received are that it's probably based on the max load of the plane (and possibly things like durability) and not so much (if at all) on the payload actually being carried. While we don't have it explicit, that's where all the arrows (and maybe there's just one arrow) point. Alfred mentioned said arrow recently as well.

Edit: I've also never seen messages about the bombs exploding, and while that wouldn't have to be the case, given the damage message paradigm in the game I would be surprised if the effects of the bombs exploding was included but the messages were excluded.

That seems reasonable. So max load being accounted for, what about recon planes or fighters that have no bomb load available? Maybe just durability then? So a Judy-C hit would be relatively ineffective if only taking into account durability.

If it is max load then all 2E bombers would have the biggest size of boom. I guess the Emilys would be a bigger boom but pretty unlikely to hit.

You are starting to go off the rails here.

Lokasenna is correct about it being a single hit but remember that in AE, a hit in any kind of combat is merely the first threshold which needs to be passed before any consideration is given to what damage might result from the action. Some of the speculation which has been posted on this page is quite misleading when considered in the context of reverse engineering the code but from the perspective of how it impacts the player, taking into account the variables which the player can manipulate, no real harm results.

Suggest you all go back to pages 130 and 131 of Mike Solli's AAR and read very closely my posts

#3899
#3901
#3904
#3912

and note what I didn't say as well as what I said.[;)]

The preoccupation, which I see from several players, about the size of the boom is really quite pointless. As Shakespeare would have said, "therein lies madness". Achieving a kamikaze hit is all that should concern players.

Alfred

What I was getting at here is trying to bring out more from the various posts that have been made over time. This game does allow the player to choose the bomb load of many planes and situations (choosing torpedoes vs bombs, choosing normal vs extended range, getting 80+ exp pilots in to drop bigger bombs, altitude choice, etc). It's therefore somewhat odd and arbitrary why the devs would have wanted to "hide" what kamis carried from the player.

What does it matter? Why not just say that there is a bigger boom from a bigger plane? that makes perfect sense, and wouldn't change much about how (smart) players set up their kami strikes. There is no exploit there, no game balance issue, nothing to "hide." So why the mystery? [;)]

I agree a hit is primary. No argument there. I've had success flying FP kamis and Judy kamis with 800kg bombs. Again, that is some of what I'm trying to squeeze out.

Maybe the greatest concern in an effective kami is a good pilot with expert defensive and low naval bombing skills.
Second might be plane speed and manoeuvre ratings.
Third might be airframe durability and armor.

So does the bomb load matter? Sounds like not. So why then research the myriad of 800kg bomb carrying late war planes, most of which don't have a good speed/manoeuvre/durability combo? I've decided already there is no reason. I can convert almost any group to either F/FB/MB and therefore get a good combo of fast and either durable or manoeuvrable airframes to use.

What it would be good to know is how much bigger a boom an airframe type would produce so I could better choose which of the good airframes I know will more often get a hit to dedicate to my low volume kami strikes and which to keep in their day jobs. That's all really.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Quote from the last relevant post from Alfred made in Mike's AAR.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by "bomb load"

For a subject which exercises so much the minds of players, both the manual and the devs over the years have been very reticent to provide much guidance. I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Kamikaze air operations in AE are very similar to what transpired in classical WITP. The two main changes made for AE were::

(a) fix the bug which saw kamikaze aircraft attack land bases (this fix was one of the last classical WITP bug fixes), and

(b) improve the chances of a kamikaze strike penetrating Allied CAP. This mainly involved addressing the classical WITP problem of late war uber CAP neutering any kind of air strike.

IRL the damage from kamikaze aircraft came not just from their ordnance but also from their fuel and mass of airframe. If AE were a simulation this would require every single different eligible aircraft model having its mass + fuel + specific mission ordnance factored into the kamikaze combat algorithm. For each plane which hits. Instead, partly because that level of detail is not tracked, in AE this is all abstracted down to a relatively few inputs into the kamikaze combat algorithm.

What really matters for the abstraction is whether a kamikaze hit is achieved. That means first successfully getting through Allied CAP (the primary Allied defence) and flak. A kamikaze plane which hits gets only 1 single hit, not multiple hits to reflect ordnance + fuel + mass. The damage inflicted (don't forget there are always die rolls in Grigsby algorithms) is determined from the type of hit which is abstracted. There is no differentiation made between different aircraft models of the same aircraft type. Except for determining the type of abstracted hit to be applied, aircraft models without a bomb are not discriminated against compared to those aircraft models of the same aircraft type with a bomb.

Alfred

My reading of this is that there are different "types" of hit (with the usual randomness) for F, FB, LB and so on, and are irrespective of the plane model.

That's very interesting, if I've read it correctly? Or do I need to go get another coffee and some lunch?


You don't have to go get another coffee and some lunch.[:)]

The actual code is more complicated but the essence of how it operates is along these lines as long as players understand the code is incorporating relevant abstractions (yes in the plural).

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

(Un?)fortunately, I think kamikaze hits are treated as a single 'boom'.

How do we know?

What makes the single boom? An accumulation of the bomb load? Is airframe size added in? Or is the boom simply a one size fits all, so bomb size doesn't matter?

I remember someone (mind_messing?)saying the Judy-C works well as a kami. It carries no bomb load at all. So what's the boom there?

I don't think it was me - don't recall using the Judy-C in kami attacks at any rate.

You get a respectible level of damamge from every kami hit, regarding if it's big or not.


Which is the key point players need to understand. Getting the hit should be the sole priority. The other variables are not under player control to any meaningful degree.

Alfred