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

[Ron Saueracker]

In the first PBEM game I played vs 2ndACR, I used port attacks with B-17s and IL-4s often during daylight (never at night) and received results that I thought were way out of whack. CLs Kinu and Kashima both blew up from mag explosions and innumerable merchants and lesser warships and auxilliaries were repeatedly pounded and sunk. Akagi took a hit from IL-4s with poor experience...even a blind bear finds a picnic basket sometimes.[;)]

This just seems too much despite all the cases for and against, the whys and why nots. Basically, the odds of whether a ship in port is targetted, and not the ordinance accuracy, could be tweaked down some. Be nice if a random modifier could be applied which exempted some ships from being targetted at all. We have this in surface combat (which makes little or no sense theway it works out during the combat...especially when all the seperate TFs in a hex are never "undetected". This is backwards to what it should be.). Because it is in surface combat, the same mechanics could be used for air attacks vs ports.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 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 [;)]

I knew I'd add to the cultural makeup of these forums with my 60 mile hex crack![:D]Sheeesh...[;)]

My right mouse button is wonky and I can'r edit my posts well, so bear with me.

Regarding defences: I'm not referring to AA units, CD units etc. I'm referring to what can be added to the base menu screen. We have the ability to expand/build Ports, AirBases and Fortifications. I am suggesting that we could increase these options to include Port Defences (1-9). These defences would abstract the presence of net and boom defences and their support vessels, barrage balloons, search lights etc. I suggest this because we are getting the ability to attack ports but don't have the inherent dangers and counters to both which make them the costly endeavours they were and the rare occurence they were (due to the anti torpedo defences which were intrinsic to larger ports). PH was unique in that the shallow depth was assumed to be defence enough.

What is accomplished by raising the threshold for disbanding ships into a port? Well, for one, it will keep players from "hiding" huge numbers of ships in any dinky little cove and will negate the need for making ships so darn vulnerable in port because of this gamey use of the disband feature. This is important because the targetting of ships in port is identicle for size 3 ports with 500 ships in it ([8|]) as it is with size 10 ports with 3 ships in it.

Further on this, what was gained by allowing disbandment in minor ports to begin with? The only difference, aside from combat effects, between docking and disbanding is what, that it allows full system repair? Hardly worth it. The combat effects are protection from subs and the target selection routines for air units on naval or port attack.

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In the first PBEM game I played vs 2ndACR, I used port attacks with B-17s and IL-4s often during daylight (never at night) and received results that I thought were way out of whack. CLs Kinu and Kashima both blew up from mag explosions and innumerable merchants and lesser warships and auxilliaries were repeatedly pounded and sunk. Akagi took a hit from IL-4s with poor experience...even a blind bear finds a picnic basket sometimes.[;)]

This just seems too much despite all the cases for and against, the whys and why nots. Basically, the odds of whether a ship in port is targetted, and not the ordinance accuracy, could be tweaked down some. Be nice if a random modifier could be applied which exempted some ships from being targetted at all. We have this in surface combat (which makes little or no sense theway it works out during the combat...especially when all the seperate TFs in a hex are never "undetected". This is backwards to what it should be.). Because it is in surface combat, the same mechanics could be used for air attacks vs ports.

Those raids took place at Pescadores with 8 AA units in it also. Flak is useless for defense in my opinion. I can pack a base with every AA unit Japan has and still the Allies will pound it into scrap. Yet let a air group attack 3 Allied CA's at sea and half your strike group will be butchered.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In the first PBEM game I played vs 2ndACR, I used port attacks with B-17s and IL-4s often during daylight (never at night) and received results that I thought were way out of whack. CLs Kinu and Kashima both blew up from mag explosions and innumerable merchants and lesser warships and auxilliaries were repeatedly pounded and sunk. Akagi took a hit from IL-4s with poor experience...even a blind bear finds a picnic basket sometimes.[;)]

This just seems too much despite all the cases for and against, the whys and why nots. Basically, the odds of whether a ship in port is targetted, and not the ordinance accuracy, could be tweaked down some. Be nice if a random modifier could be applied which exempted some ships from being targetted at all. We have this in surface combat (which makes little or no sense theway it works out during the combat...especially when all the seperate TFs in a hex are never "undetected". This is backwards to what it should be.). Because it is in surface combat, the same mechanics could be used for air attacks vs ports.

Those raids took place at Pescadores with 8 AA units in it also. Flak is useless for defense in my opinion. I can pack a base with every AA unit Japan has and still the Allies will pound it into scrap. Yet let a air group attack 3 Allied CA's at sea and half your strike group will be butchered.

I was starting to feel guilty. I reduced the port attacks as a result. Something is not working regarding base defenses and attacks against it and bases/ports in the hex.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

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...

I agree 100% with what "Pry" wrote!


But, to fix this, I have long long long standing three ideas/wishes:


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.

IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3.

IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150
port size 10 : MAX number of anchored ships = 200


#3 Cargo ship loading/unloading depending on port size

In current WitP we can load/unload cargo ships regardless on port size and number of ships.

Historically, for example, US had severe problem with this because many ships had to wait for weeks (and months) to be loaded/unloaded (Noumea was prime example BTW).

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: pry

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 on purpose left the whole target island empty and with just port and ships in it - that way we would be "best possible" scenario for attackers.

Nonetheless I think I clearly shown that even 2-engine B-25 can wreck havoc and that B-17's or B-29's are not even needed...


IMHO, the problem lies in fact that individual aircraft attack individual targets with individual bombs!


Please note that even non moving ship is rather small target of 100 m x 15 m (in general for some medium type cargo ship).


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mr.Frag]

IMHO, the problem lies in fact that individual aircraft attack individual targets with individual bombs!

Correct with is completely impossible in large raids. Bombs are simply dumped out based on the leaders actions in a large pattern. We have documented records that clearly state that puttng together raids of 12 B-17's due to the poor command and control facilities took an hour for takeoffs and almost 2 hours for landing until the Allies built their superfields for the B-29's at Tinian.

As Mike would have it, 90 B-29's fly single ship and each one picks their own target? hmm, so, lets see, 90 x 1000 yards = 90,000 yards or a line of bombers 45 MILES long. Yea, ok Mike, sure. That happened all the time. [8|]

[byron13]

This may not be possible, but it seems to me that the ship damage results from a port attack by 4-engined bombers should be about the same as from a naval attack. Bombing moving ships from altitude had so many factors leading to inaccurate results, that it is essentially a random function based on the number of bombs, the area over which the ships are placed, and size of the ship. Try putting your favorite model of the Yamato in a swimming pool and drop marbles on it from a five or ten stories up.

Since the target of 4e bombers in a port attack is more likely to be the port than the ships in the port, I dont see why the same kind of results wouldn't apply, which accounts for random bombs that are well off target and happen to hit ships.

Even if the ships in the port were the target, the results shouldn't be that much different. Experienced crews in Europe had a pretty miserable rate of getting the target within a 1,000 foot CEP. At least in Europe a near miss might still hit a building, road, or some infrastructure. A near miss against a ship has no effect unless is it is a very, very near miss. So even if you're aiming at one ship, you have a pretty low chance of hitting it with a squadron release. If you're just trying to hit ships in the harbor in general, you're back to a random formula of number of bombs spread over a wide area in which there are several small targets.

The case is different for tactical bombers, which are more likely to be sent in with the purpose of targeting individual ships at low altitude.

[tsimmonds]

Here is a link to an excellent overview of the RAFs attempts to bomb Scharnhorst and Gneisenau while they at Brest. The attacks spanned the period 3/22/41 to 2/11/42, and had small success for the effort expended. In WitP, they would have been nailed by that first 100-plane raid on 3/30/41....

BTW, before anyone siezes on this as an indication of success and effectiveness:

The trouble came on 24 July, when she was lying at anchor. It had taken the RAF a commendably short time to locate her. At noon that day several squadrons of Handley Page Halifaxes bombed from altitudes of 3.000 to 3.700 meters (10-12,000 feet). Five bombs hit the starboard side simultaneously in a nearly straight line parallel to the centerline. Two bombs were of the 227 kg (500 lb) high-explosive type, the others were 454 kg (1000 lb) semi-armor-piercing type bombs.

....consider that these bombs were obviously dropped by a single aircraft. Had it been flying 50 feet either to the right or to the left these bombs would all have missed as well. This just emphasizes how iffy this whole exercise was. Yes, given the time and effort expended, this was bound to occur, eventually.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Here is a link to an excellent overview of the RAFs attempts to bomb Scharnhorst and Gneisenau while they at Brest. The attacks spanned the period 3/22/41 to 2/11/42, and had small success for the effort expended. In WitP, they would have been nailed by that first 100-plane raid on 3/30/41....

Damn you... damn you... [:D]

Ever since I started this therad I am trying to find some nice WWW link about British attampts on German ships in French ports (namely Brest) and now you overtook me... shame on you... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[tsimmonds]

Damn you... damn you...

Ever since I started this therad I am trying to find some nice WWW link about British attampts on German ships in French ports (namely Brest) and now you overtook me... shame on you...

You gotta love Google: "air raid Brest Scharnhorst". Course it only works if you can spell[;)]

[tsimmonds]

While I'm thinking of it, Apollo 11, what does this massive B29 raid do if there are just two ships disbanded in port....?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Damn you... damn you...

Ever since I started this therad I am trying to find some nice WWW link about British attampts on German ships in French ports (namely Brest) and now you overtook me... shame on you...

You gotta love Google: "air raid Brest Scharnhorst". Course it only works if you can spell[;)]

I thik my mistake was that I used too restrictive demands like "hit" and "statistic"... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[The Gnome]

(My Bold for emphasis)

On the night of 30 March, 100 RAF aircraft flew over the port and dropped their bombs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau escaped unharmed.

Please keep in mind the raid mentioned used night attacks. This shouldn't be a direct comparison to the results of a daylight raid. I am in the middle of reading the excellent article now, but it seems that the 100 plane raid had a reason byond accuracy for missing the ships.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

(My Bold for emphasis)

On the night of 30 March, 100 RAF aircraft flew over the port and dropped their bombs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau escaped unharmed.

Please keep in mind the raid mentioned used night attacks. This shouldn't be a direct comparison to the results of a daylight raid. I am in the middle of reading the excellent article now, but it seems that the 100 plane raid had a reason byond accuracy for missing the ships.

WITP results would have been a whack of hits on both S and G.

[The Gnome]

WITP results would have been a whack of hits on both S and G.

Correct, but aren't night attacks in WiTP fubar'd currently? No sense in picking apart its flaws as well.

[witpqs]

I do think that B-29's should be limited to city attack missions only

pry,

This is overly limiting the players. B-29's were just as capable as B-24's and B-17's were of making port raids. They chose to use them in the city bombing role. Part of the whole idea of the game is that players can try alternative strategies and tactics. The fact that B-29's carried way more bombs is just the way the B-29 was.

[witpqs]

90 x 1000 yards = 90,000 yards or a line of bombers 45 MILES long.

Mr. Frag,

This is off the mark. Even when attacking singly, aircraft did not (probably except rarely) fly in single file to target.

They flew together or in sub-groups, then made their attack runs either together, in smaller groups, or individually.

Many raids that I've read about took a long time, sometimes involving multiple passes over ships (even anchored ships). A 90 plane raid (hypothetical in our case) is a BIG RAID.

[witpqs]

The Germans also had highly effective AAA and other defenses, including at night.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

WITP results would have been a whack of hits on both S and G.

Correct, but aren't night attacks in WiTP fubar'd currently? No sense in picking apart its flaws as well.

I thought night attacks were cut down dramatically in 1.4? I haven't run any since upgrading.