Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY
About WITP way of modeling Level Air Bombing ( especially of tactical target ):

- We get too much hit because:

- Every plane roll to bomb with his own aiming wich is totally innacurate as in history they are pack bombing.
- Every single bomb get a roll wich is also innacurate as it greatly help multi load over single load. ( 2 x 50 kg aren't more destructive than 1x100 kg, I am not even sure they really have more chance to hit... ).


Simple way of solving it:

- Have the whole mission bomb as a whole:

- Each Squadron leader make a roll to see if he get on the target. This determine the percentile of his squadron bombing that are effective.
- Calculate the total amount of bomb load delivered ( in Tons !! ) for ALL squadrons.
- Apply modifier for dispersion, altitude, precision, kind of target.
- Cross reference on a table to give the amount of damage to this target kind for this amount of explosive ( apply a random factor, also seriously crush the nuimbers at top of the table so the more the lesser ).
- Randomly determine the amount of ship hits based on the volume of fire, the number of ships and historical stats ( port level and/or fort being used to determine the amount of protection the ships have ) and also randomly determine the kind of bomb that do hit the ship.

I guess this is the best way we can get "historical" result on thoses operation.

And I think some of the routines could be get back from BTR.

Very interesting ideas!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Halsey]

Some of us last spring tried to nix this port attack feature. I was shot bown in flames![:D]

There were only a handful of these attacks made successully during the war. In WITP they are a common happening. Japanese fanboys cried foul. Now you are seeing results for Allied strikes. So what do you think now? I suppose you'll want it changed when these results start happening to your favorite side.

Now, are there any moderators out there willing to rethink a restructuring of this feature?

I remember this was hopped up because of ships hiding in ports in UV. Now ports within range of any bomber aircraft are a severe liability. Enough said. I remember talking about this last spring till I was blue in the face.[:@]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Some of us last spring tried to nix this port attack feature. I was shot bown in flames![:D]

There were only a handful of these attacks made successully during the war. In WITP they are a common happening. Japanese fanboys cried foul. Now you are seeing results for Allied strikes. So what do you think now? I suppose you'll want it changed when these results start happening to your favorite side.

Now, are there any moderators out there willing to rethink a restructuring of this feature?

I remember this was hopped up because of ships hiding in ports in UV. Now ports within range of any bomber aircraft are a severe liability. Enough said. I remember talking about this last spring till I was blue in the face.[:@]

So what we are getting down to is that this crap is to keep players from hiding in ports? Geezus.

Make a port maximum capacity and be done with it!

[Halsey]

I wish I could remember where some of those old threads were Ron. Mostly it was people complaining about disbanding ships into ports to hide from airstikes. This is the result of the effort to fix that option.

Well, they fixed it good alright.[:D]

How about not being able to disband ships in a port that is level 5 or under. That would fix it! Then only the really big ports could be used for disbanding or repairs[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I wish I could remember where some of those old threads were Ron. Mostly it was people complaining about disbanding ships into ports to hide from airstikes. This is the result of the effort to fix that option.

Well, they fixed it good alright.[:D]

How about not being able to disband ships in a port that is level 5 or under. That would fix it! Then only the really big ports could be used for disbanding or repairs[;)]

Size 10 port only can disband unlimited ships, then it is some sort of maximum down to,sure 5, and those with naval shipyards.

[Halsey]

Sounds good!

Now try convincing someone to fix it![:D]

Good luck. I had enough of this debate last spring![:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Sounds good!

Now try convincing someone to fix it![:D]

Good luck. I had enough of this debate last spring![:D]

I'm not really expecting much. Mike is busting his butt as is.

[Mr.Frag]

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

Raver, completely agree with the *numbers* but the problem is the effect, not the numbers.

You simply cannot get that number of aircraft lined up to bomb a bunch of ships. B-29's are just too big, even B-17's used in those numbers are fantasy. This is one of those cases where the numbers just don't give the truth.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

Raver, completely agree with the *numbers* but the problem is the effect, not the numbers.

You simply cannot get that number of aircraft lined up to bomb a bunch of ships. B-29's are just too big, even B-17's used in those numbers are fantasy. This is one of those cases where the numbers just don't give the truth.

Hit the nail on the head. This puppy is an exception.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

There are 3600 bombs falling from 90 aircraft........46 bombs hit ships.............1.27% of the bombs found a target. Sorry but I fail to see what is wrong here.

Raver, completely agree with the *numbers* but the problem is the effect, not the numbers.

You simply cannot get that number of aircraft lined up to bomb a bunch of ships. B-29's are just too big, even B-17's used in those numbers are fantasy. This is one of those cases where the numbers just don't give the truth.

RGR

I agree 100%.


So... what to do to make this right? Some instalment of diminishing returns perhaps?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mr.Frag]

Hmm, what about this:

Doctor the loadout in this kind of manner when on any form of ship attack (including ports)

B-17 instead of 12x 500lb goes in with 2x 2000 lb
B-24 instead of 16x 500lb goes in with 3x 2000 lb
B-29 instead of 40x 500lb goes in with 4x 4000 lb

This has a double effect. It dramatically reduces the bombs dropped yet should any of those bombs hit, they are going to be devastating. The problem is this obviously requires coding.

Leo, if you want to run some more tests, hack the planes up in this manner and rerun them.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Hmm, what about this:

Doctor the loadout in this kind of manner when on any form of ship attack (including ports)

B-17 instead of 12x 500lb goes in with 2x 2000 lb
B-24 instead of 16x 500lb goes in with 3x 2000 lb
B-29 instead of 40x 500lb goes in with 4x 4000 lb

This has a double effect. It dramatically reduces the bombs dropped yet should any of those bombs hit, they are going to be devastating. The problem is this obviously requires coding.

Leo, if you want to run some more tests, hack the planes up in this manner and rerun them.

This idea is interesting but I see some problems already:

#1
What about 2 engine bombers (in my tests I proved that B-25 was equally deadly in port attacks)?

#2
What about "Normal" / "Extended" range differences?

#3
What about attack on port (i.e. facilities) itself?



IMHO much much better way would be diminishing returns where just portion of bombers would have ago at ships themselves while other would just bomb the port itself (i.e. facilities there)....



Explanation:

Right now in current WitP it appears that all of them have a go at both anchored ships and port facilities.

What if we set that just certain proportion of bombers are able to go for ship bombing (and that proportion of bombers would be determined by port size since the bigger the port the bigger is the room for bombers to maneuver over it)?


I am thinking about following formula:

Number_of_bombers_attacking_ships = Number_of_bombers_in_attack x Port_size x 0.0333


Since biggest port is size 10 this would mean that in such case 33% of attacking bomber would have a go at ships itself while 66% would b bombing port facilities itself.

Port size 10 -> 33% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 9 -> 30% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 8 -> 27% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 7 -> 23% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 6 -> 20% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 5 -> 16% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 4 -> 13% of attacking aircraft can attack ships
Port size 3 -> 10% of attacking aircraft can attack ships

Note: since ships can't be disbanded in port sizes 1 and 2 I didn't write them at all



Example:

100x B-29's attacking Port size 6.

20x B-29's attacking ships, 80x B-29's attacking port facilities.


What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Numbers/percentage are provisional of course but, IMHO, would serve purpose rather well...

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Again there were much fewer hits by B-29's at 30000 ft compared to 10000 ft (i.e. similar to my previous test when they were bombing warships) but still there are, IMHO, way too many of them. The 30000 ft is almost 10 km and transport ships is very very very small target of 100 m x 15 m at MAX...

The only thing I immensely liked was the fact that there was no hits at night from 30000 ft... at least something...

So... (again) using all my tests against warships altogether I think that Matrix/2By3 should revisit the bombing routine against ships that are in port...


Leo "Apollo11"

greetings,

B-29 were unsuitable for high attitude bombing because jet stream above Japan, that's why bombs felt outside targeted area.

And thats why B-29 switched to low attitude attack, although they were designed for strategic high attitude bombing.

[decourcy]

I know the 25mm AA gun has a bad rep on this board, but it was a full automatic AA gun. Firing at HUGE bombers over the course of a couple hours would have seen the B29's perforated by the couple hundred 25mm AA guns these ships were carrying.

I have noticed that ships in port seem to have no flak ability.
problem?

Mike

[Mr.Frag]

#1
What about 2 engine bombers (in my tests I proved that B-25 was equally deadly in port attacks)?

#2
What about "Normal" / "Extended" range differences?

#3
What about attack on port (i.e. facilities) itself?

#1 not a problem, they are fine due to range constraints already

#2 no differences needed. It is a light load

#3 same deal here, the larger bomb size when getting a hit will be more effective

No problems at all [;)]

[BlackVoid]

35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000

A few thoughts....

Above statistic quite good for a city, for a ship not enough. Wasn't the Naples bombing done by Stukas?

Seeing those reports, I think the bombs are too accurate (in the game). With this kind of effectiveness the war would have been over sooner IRL.

WW2 level bombing was most effective against cities. Japanese cities hardly had any firefighters at the start of the bombing campaign. Germany, despite receiving the mentioned bombload, managed to increase its production during the bombing campaign. Tactical air however hindered movement during the day, especially near the fronts (both fronts, with a LOT of Sturmoviks on the east). Germany in the end ran out of fuel, accelerating the collapse.

Strategic level bombing was not decisive in WW2 apart from the A-Bomb.

[witpqs]

I think that limiting the number of a/c that can attack ignores the fact that we are talking about a long attack time, and each plane/strike package is only over head for a short time.

Someone also mentioned that the reason this was only a minor issue during the war is that the IJN had learned not to leave those kinds of targets lying around. I just finished re-reading The Lonely Ships - The Life and Death of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet. Port attacks by level bombers were bad for ships and caused surviving ships to be re-based. Impossible to get any hit percentages from the text, though.

I need to think about it a little more, but at first blush I like the idea that Mr. Frag has come up with. By the way, if we go with this idea we will have to cover other plane types as well, the various variations on the B24, for example.

Mr. Frag, how about weighing in on the torpedo bombing issue re ports?

For everybody - just to cover it, I assume we are all okay with the present model for dive bomber, fighter bomber, and fighter attacks on ports and ships at sea? And search planes like catalinas would be handled like level bombers for port attacks but normally for at sea attacks, yes?

[BlackVoid]

Even half the damage would cause you to rebase.

[Mr.Frag]

Mr. Frag, how about weighing in on the torpedo bombing issue re ports?

Never really had a problem with the Jap use of nell/betty on ports ... If the allied side is dumb enough to leave lots of ships in ports that japan can reach, well, consider it a gift. These aircraft are paper thin and basically strip Japan of all her pilots. The more they get used for stuff like this, the more < 40 skill fighter pilots that will be around protecting japan. [:D]

As far as CV strikes, both sides can do it so it equals out from a balance standpoint. Allied aircraft are more survivable long term and of course we all know the state of japan's naval pilots.

While I don't like to see people do port attacks on turn 1 of the game personally, I also look at it from the standpoint that if Japan can change turn #1, then the Allies have a "free for all" move and can do whatever they want too like pulling all their ships *out* of the obvious ports, transfering their aircraft out of obvious target bases, etc.

This is just one of those things where if people are reasonable, the results are reasonable.

[witpqs]

I guess the issue comes down to increasing the historical accuracy of the capabilities versus where things are now in the game (regarding torpedo bombing of ports). What do you think about the prospects from that perspective?

This is affected a little bit by the fact that the players are unable to dictate the loadout of the a/c - otherwise the torp attack on ports could be avoided by player agreement. Is it possible to get a bombs/torps button for torpedo capable aircraft?