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

[dtravel]

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

Well, there's your problem right there Mr.Frag. You are assuming that people can be reasonable in a war. [:'(]

[Mr.Frag]

Well, there's your problem right there Mr.Frag. You are assuming that people can be reasonable in a war.

No, I assume they can't, therefore I go the "free to do whatever you want path" [:'(]

The price of this is that it takes code to enforce what people can not agree to [;)]

[Mr.Frag]

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?

No reason to attack a port unless you are gunning for ships.

Playing the devils advocate, you can not expect Japan to sit back while Allies drop clouds of 500 lb bombs on their ports and not send their betty's at your ports. Either avoid ports or agree to no restrictions.

If you think that the bettys and nells are going to win the game on ship sinkings in port, you just have not played the game long enough to see the truth. They are the #1 cause of japanese pilot shortages.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
No reason to attack a port unless you are gunning for ships.

I thought the concensus was that port attacks were the best way to weaken CD gun defenses? [&:]

[Mr.Frag]

I thought the concensus was that port attacks were the best way to weaken CD gun defenses?

Naw, thats wht we fixed Bombardment TF's so you could now have a use for them BB's [:'(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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?

No reason to attack a port unless you are gunning for ships.

Playing the devils advocate, you can not expect Japan to sit back while Allies drop clouds of 500 lb bombs on their ports and not send their betty's at your ports. Either avoid ports or agree to no restrictions.

I think you missed my point. Gunning for ships, yes - of course! But if using torps to do it was impossible (except in the very rare cases) then force port attacks to use bombs (except at PH, which is a huge exception).

Not expecting either player to sit back. If torps couldn't work or entailed tremendous risk, them forbid them or increase the risk to the level it actually was. That's what I'm suggesting you consider.

If you think that the bettys and nells are going to win the game on ship sinkings in port, you just have not played the game long enough to see the truth. They are the #1 cause of japanese pilot shortages.

Don't know how you picked this up from anything I wrote.

[pry]

The whole problem here is that most folks never grasped the abstract nature of "Ports" in the game, they always default their thinking and arguments to slips, berths cranes, warehouses and fancy dry-docks… obstructed approaches etc, then use this as a argument that torpedo attacks should not be allowed... Guess what folks none of that exists in our ports. All of these things are reflected in additional capabilities like repair yards, ship yards etc...

The port size ratings are simply a capability rating of how much cargo can pass thru it per turn and has nothing to do with what amenities are contained in the port.

Remember in game terms the "Port" and its benefits are also spread out over the whole 60 mile hex to include offshore anchorages as well as the port itself.

So when a port reaches size 3 you can now disband your ships into the "Port" making them immune to submarines and we have players using the tactic of hiding hundreds of ships in a "port" to defend them against submarines and now want them protected from air attack as well???? Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

The port hex is 60 miles, and no port in existence anywhere in the world even today is that big...., Players start hiding hundreds of ships in a 60 mile hex but want that whole 60 mile hex to be considered immune to attack because a tiny portion of the hex actually contains a real port... Come on...

[tabpub]

Hear, hear.

And, while not wanting to detract from Leo's work on this so far, what we have seen is that large forces of planes with no air opposition, nor significant ground AAA can hit immobile targets. I think that this would be an illustration of the best possible scenario for these attacks. Perhaps if there were a squadron or two of fighters and a few AAA regiments to defend such a large shipping concentration, it might not look like the slaughter of the lambs.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: pry

The whole problem here is that most folks never grasped the abstract nature of "Ports" in the game, they always default their thinking and arguments to slips, berths cranes, warehouses and fancy dry-docks… obstructed approaches etc, then use this as a argument that torpedo attacks should not be allowed... Guess what folks none of that exists in our ports. All of these things are reflected in additional capabilities like repair yards, ship yards etc...

The port size ratings are simply a capability rating of how much cargo can pass thru it per turn and has nothing to do with what amenities are contained in the port.

Remember in game terms the "Port" and its benefits are also spread out over the whole 60 mile hex to include offshore anchorages as well as the port itself.

So when a port reaches size 3 you can now disband your ships into the "Port" making them immune to submarines and we have players using the tactic of hiding hundreds of ships in a "port" to defend them against submarines and now want them protected from air attack as well???? Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

The port hex is 60 miles, and no port in existence anywhere in the world even today is that big...., Players start hiding hundreds of ships in a 60 mile hex but want that whole 60 mile hex to be considered immune to attack because a tiny portion of the hex actually contains a real port... Come on...

Pry,

I'm not looking for any gamey immunity. I just want a decent representation of the capabilities.[8D]

The whole problem here is that most folks never grasped the abstract nature of "Ports" in the game...

I wish someone had made this comment earlier in the process. If it's that abstract and torpedo attacks are (therefore) fine on a port, then that's it.[>:]

Level bombers (non-torpedo) should be deadly on port attacks as tabpub and others (including me) have pointed out. People are questioning how deadly, as in what level of accuracy? Looking at the tests that Leo has run, I think the accuracy is either okay or just a little bit too good. Others disagree, but as tabpub points out, fighters and AAA should cut it down anyway. What's your opinion on how the accuracy is now?

[Raverdave]

I'm with Pry on this..............and will state again.........sixty ships in port is a BIG target, have a look at the pics of Truk or even better yet of wartime SF or even SD. 3600 bombs falling is GOING to hit something.

You guys really need to conceptualize this................and the best way is to hire a light aircraft and fly over your local port at 10,000 feet....have a good look, then conceptualize 80 to 90 B-29s flying in formation with you.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Conclusions? Here is mine.

I've said all along that ships in ports inWITP are like huge fat sows nested together in a big round target shape. Bombing,especially high level is too accurate, doubly so due to the damage model...no near misses, no non critical areas to hit. Ships are all spread all over the place and are often protected by torpedo nets, artificial moles, barrage balloons,camoflaged etc. Conversely, port hits are rarely scored in contrast to number of ships and multiple hits on ships.

Recommendation: cut bombing vs ships in port accuracy by 75% minimum. Increase chance for a port hit.

Not related to this thread but here goes. During development, it was decided to allow twin engine bombers and larger aircraft to torpedo ships in port (disbanded). I asked for this decision to be reversed because I know of not one single occurence of this happening during the war in any theatre (not talking roadsteads here,but ports). Nobody else could point one out after I challenged them to point out a single historical precedent. Yet it is still in. Pilots and bomber commanders knew that ports were too difficult an obstacle course to allow the long runs neccessary to launch from non 1E tactical bombers. granted,since there is no limit to port capacity for some unknown reason, I suppose it must be assumed that disbanding does not neccesarily mean tied up in a slip, stuck in a bay, resting in drydock, behind net defences,behind other ships etc. Many would be outside the main port in more vulnerable roadsteads. Do to this abstraction, some torp attacks could be allowed, but not at this extremely high probability. So,this being the case...

Recommendation: reduce the chance of 2E and 4E bombers using torps vs ships in ports by at least 75%.

Why is it so easy to A) damage a port and B) repair it? Further, considering we have no operational limit for ports, damage is almost meaningless.

Recommendation. Allow more port hits but have the hits do much less damage. Increase the repair time needed to repair ports. Perhaps limit/restrict disbandement in ports damaged beyond 50%. Limit/restrict docking beyond 75% damage. Maybe introduce an operations maximum for ports and have this effected by damage.

When targeting cities, ports, allow some chance for crossover hits as these facilities were not exactly seperated from each other by some invisible forcefield. In fact, they are basically the same thing, just a different side of the tracks.

To answer pry and others, the abstract nature of ports was and is understood. But the abstract nature is one sided regarding attacks. If you ALLOW port torpedo attacks, then you had also better ADD traditional port torpedo defences like anti torpedo nets, barrage balloons, increased flak accuracy etc and ADD higher penalties to the attacking pilots.

The way I see it, this dispute revolves around GG's AI design, which needs ports to allow disbandment. The AI can't handle ship capacities the way it's designed, and while capacities would pretty much alleviate players from disbanding 100 ships in your local kiddie pool, the AI would fiz, sput, smoke and die. Sooooooo............

Raise the bar on what size ports allow disbandment. It's size 3 now...go for size 6 or 7. What's the problem? With no capacity,a line needs to be drawn and size 3 is clearly too small as basically every ports can be made to allow didsbandment of thousands of ships.

Because it's abstracted and capacity means more than simply all ships are here at X, let's assume that some ships disbanded are in the actual port, some are waiting outside or are located at other lesser subsidiary ports in the area, while others are actually off map on other business (how else do we explain the massive supply and fuel increases every turn?. If we assume this, not all ships in a port should be targetable at all due to abstraction. Due to abstraction, less shipping would be vulnerable to torps than to bombs, so lower the probability of torpedo loadouts accordingly and raise it for bombs.

Raising the threshold from three to 6,7,8 whatever can't be difficult and won't screw the AI as it already has restrictions to deal with size 2 down. Changing the targeting for ports might be a little work, having to randomly determine which ships are NOT THERE. Changing loadout probability can't be too difficult either.

Let's rock and be done with it.

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

[Mr.Frag]

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron, the hex is 60 miles [:'(]

[Mike Scholl]

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.

FRAG Totally dissagree. Nothing prevents the bombers from making individual runs.
The game give no defensive advantage for flying in "combat boxes" and formations,
so why do you want to have it penalize bombing accuracy as if all bomb releases were
"formation drops". If you want to hamstring their bombing, then give them the de-
fensive bonus for formation flying. But that would butcher even more Japanese in-
terceptors. Please pick one rationalization and stick to it.

[witpqs]

Mike,

I agree - single runs were done in reality and a 'formation only drops' rule is bad medicine.[:(]

Ron,

There are more consequences to increasing port size for disbandment, such as ship repair. I understand the benefits of what you propose but I suspect the effects are too sweeping to handle at this stage of development & implementation.



(psst. Mr. Frag, how big is a base hex again???)

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
FRAG Totally dissagree. Nothing prevents the bombers from making individual runs.
The game give no defensive advantage for flying in "combat boxes" and formations,
so why do you want to have it penalize bombing accuracy as if all bomb releases were
"formation drops". If you want to hamstring their bombing, then give them the de-
fensive bonus for formation flying. But that would butcher even more Japanese in-
terceptors. Please pick one rationalization and stick to it.

And how would you please calculate the losses B29 WOULD HAVE HAD would they have been used as single planes?

I´d say the box defensive bonuses are included in the durability (or whatever).
Your bomber fires with all his MG although in a box it wouldn´t have been possible because neighboring planes would have been hit etc.
(German pilots learned to target the cockpit from face to face and shot down large numbers of Allied heavies. I have never seen something like this in WITP.)

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron, the hex is 60 miles [:'(]

But then the port hit number are much too high. 60miles sqare, that is 3600sqm, divided by 90 bombers is 1 bomber per 40sqm; one bomber carries 40 bombs, that is one bomb/sqm, wow, what a hitting rate! As a matter of fact no bomber should hit anything, if you think with 60 miles hexes.
Now you should decide:
Are there all ships in ONE port? This should enable this massive B17 attacks or are the ships scattered in small ports along the hex, which should allow torpedo attacks (as they are now).
Doing both is definitely biasing the side with the heavier longrange bombers.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron, the hex is 60 miles [:'(]

Your all meanies.[:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Mike,

I agree - single runs were done in reality and a 'formation only drops' rule is bad medicine.[:(]

Ron,

There are more consequences to increasing port size for disbandment, such as ship repair. I understand the benefits of what you propose but I suspect the effects are too sweeping to handle at this stage of development & implementation.



(psst. Mr. Frag, how big is a base hex again???)

No consequence seen from here. They can still dock, which in reality is the same as disbanding in the smaller ports as neither have any real dockyard facilities like repair yards. Flooding can beaided if docked or disbanded. No coding necessary. Will it affect the AI? Don't see it as it would just have to deal with a port now unable todisband ships the sameas it did withsize 2 and smaller ports.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
FRAG Totally dissagree. Nothing prevents the bombers from making individual runs.
The game give no defensive advantage for flying in "combat boxes" and formations,
so why do you want to have it penalize bombing accuracy as if all bomb releases were
"formation drops". If you want to hamstring their bombing, then give them the de-
fensive bonus for formation flying. But that would butcher even more Japanese in-
terceptors. Please pick one rationalization and stick to it.

And how would you please calculate the losses B29 WOULD HAVE HAD would they have been used as single planes?

I´d say the box defensive bonuses are included in the durability (or whatever).
Your bomber fires with all his MG although in a box it wouldn´t have been possible because neighboring planes would have been hit etc.
(German pilots learned to target the cockpit from face to face and shot down large numbers of Allied heavies. I have never seen something like this in WITP.)

You're "straw dogging". Aircraft generally flew in groupings towards their targets
no matter what type they were. What made US Heavies sometimes less than ac-
curate was the need to fly in tight defensive boxes in Europe, especially when they
were lacking in escorts. To maintain the combat box, they had to drop on the lead
bombadier of their unit creating automatic dispersion. Otherwise, and in much of
the Pacific campaign, each bomber-aimer made an individual run with his A/C.

So you already have in the game the effects of non-defensive box flying (and it
doesn't mean 50 planes making 50 seperate raids). Which is why I say if you are
going to have the game force boming inaccuracy based on rigid defensive forma-
tions, then you will need to give the "bennies" as well. Personally, I find the ac-
curacy described (1.5%) to be quite reasonable given the targets and the bombing
altitude and would vote with those who say most of the screaming is coming from
Japanese Fan-boys who have just recognized that the other side can use these
tactics as well.

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


To answer pry and others, the abstract nature of ports was and is understood. But the abstract nature is one sided regarding attacks. If you ALLOW port torpedo attacks, then you had also better ADD traditional port torpedo defences like anti torpedo nets, barrage balloons, increased flak accuracy etc and ADD higher penalties to the attacking pilots.

Port defensive capabilities are not inherent to the port but to the units assigned to defend the port.

Port defenses or the equivalent there of are represented in the base force units, your flak is provided from them aided by any other LCU in the hex with AA capability, It is also up to the player to provide air protection for the hex if he is going to base all those ships in that hex.

Not to take away from the tests Leo has done but one very important thing is missing no defenses except those provided by the ships themselves and they are hobbled because they are docked and can not avoid being hit, his tests are like shooting fish in a barrel. Had he put in some base forces and LCU's for flak defense and some fighter cover his hit rate would diminish as would the number of aircraft actually dropping on the target.

I do think that B-29's should be limited to city attack missions only that will cure a part of this issue, B-24's and B-17's did drop on the ships in Simpson harbor on a regular basis and should not be exempted from port atacks.

Raise the bar on what size ports allow disbandment. It's size 3 now...go for size 6 or 7. What's the problem? With no capacity,a line needs to be drawn and size 3 is clearly too small as basically every ports can be made to allow didsbandment of thousands of ships.

Because it's abstracted and capacity means more than simply all ships are here at X, let's assume that some ships disbanded are in the actual port, some are waiting outside or are located at other lesser subsidiary ports in the area, while others are actually off map on other business (how else do we explain the massive supply and fuel increases every turn?.

Ron what do you actually accomplish here, due to geography every port is unique and most Islands in the Pacific do not even have a lagoon let along a functioning port but due to abstraction every island can have a port if it reaches size 3.

Luganville and Guadalcanal are prime examples neither has a lagoon let along a port and all cargo was unloaded over the beach yet once they reach size 3 due to abstraction they magically get protected anchorages and berths... and the protections from them that never existed. Once the size threshold is reached any location can magically become something the was never possible and it does not matter if it is size 3 or 6 the issue is still the same.

If we assume this, not all ships in a port should be targetable at all due to abstraction. Due to abstraction, less shipping would be vulnerable to torps than to bombs, so lower the probability of torpedo loadouts accordingly and raise it for bombs.

Raising the threshold from three to 6,7,8 whatever can't be difficult and won't screw the AI as it already has restrictions to deal with size 2 down. Changing the targeting for ports might be a little work, having to randomly determine which ships are NOT THERE. Changing loadout probability can't be too difficult either.

Let's rock and be done with it.

I did put forward the idea of protecting x numbers of ships based on each x size of the ports from air attack, mainly to keep you quite [;)] near the end of testing I would still be agreeable to that but will go against any attempt to make whole hexes torpedo free zones.

And if anyone uses the "60 mile hex" escape pod to help expalain away consumer questions/criticisms one more time, I'm really gonna freak!!!!

But Ron the hexes really are 60 miles [;)]