Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Here is simple idea of how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...


Right now I am 99.99% sure that every single bomb aircraft carries have potential of individual hit on target!

Therefore we get extremely unrealistic high count of hits on all kind of targets (especially if aircraft is carrying many bombs like 12 for B-17 and 40 for B-29 for example).


So... why not calculate the whole bomb load as _SINGLE_ weapon and only calculate the number of bombs for effect if hit happens?


In other words the individual bombs would seize to exist and bomb streams would become irrelevant (in any case I think that should be so because, as example, if B-17 drops 12 bombs alongside a ships it is completely different matter than when it drops perpendicular to it and I think WitP always uses the formula for most optimistic case)!


What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"

[AmiralLaurent]

Bombers flying in realistic numbers have realistic results in WITP.

Huge raids suppress AA fire by their whole number. In reality planes can't attack all at the time so big raids should suffer more from AA than small ones. WITP shows the contrary.

The whole problem is the hordes of B-17E that are in the game and that were never used in Pacific in real life. Some hundreds of B-17 were deployed there during the whole war, that is about the size of the starting units in WITP and the number an Allied player will receive in two months.

I even try an unhistorical first turn to send the KB to Seattle and test if you can destroy the B-17 factory here. You can only disable it, but it will repair one point a day so if you disable it entirely Allied player loses roughly 40 B-17E. Don't think it is worth the risk to send KB there during the game. First turn is far too gamey for me. By the way on the first day my Kates attacked the port and the poor BB Colorado took 49 800 kilos bombs and 13 torpedoes. She finally exploded and sank between the 40th and 50th hit. Vals pounded the airfield and destroyed as much planes as it is usual in PH.

[Ron Saueracker]

How to do this? If a hit is scored, do all bombs in the brace score and vice versa? Perhaps cutting the accuracy of the bombs in question. This might screw dive bombers and low level attacks though.

[rtrapasso]

??? I thought that the number of hits an aircraft could obtain was 1/attack. This has been stated numerous times in the threads, and i thought it was by the Moderators.

Is this not true?[&:] I've never seen more hits than the number of aircraft attacking, but then again, i'm sure i've not seen everything...

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

??? I thought that the number of hits an aircraft could obtain was 1/attack. This has been stated numerous times in the threads, and i thought it was by the Moderators.

Is this not true?[&:] I've never seen more hits than the number of aircraft attacking, but then again, i'm sure i've not seen everything...

Seems to me that I have allready seen B-17 scoring more hits than there were planes against a burning wreck attacked at low alt. Maybe in UV.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Please remember (and read) one older thread I started regarding this very same issue:


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

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... 6mpage%3D1


Leo "Apollo11"

[adsoul]

Seems to me that I have allready seen B-17 scoring more hits than there were planes against a burning wreck attacked at low alt. Maybe in UV.

Against naval moving targets this should be impossible according to the manual (page 130 7.2.2.10)

[Feinder]

The urban (game) ledgends of the B-17s...

I'm actually fairly sure (see, I sound just the same), that LEVEL BOMBERS in NavAtk mode, can only get one hit already (even if they carry 8 in the trunk). It represents them dropping them all in a stick.

DIVE BOMBERS and TORPEDO PLANES can get multiple hits, if they have multiple bombs (like the 2x 30kg bombs, and the 1x 250kg bomb of a Val).

In port, it's a different story. I believe they can get multiple hits on a (stationary) target in port. I don't really have a problem with that. It's not maneuvering like a ship in a TF. Doesn't mean they will get multiple hits, but that they -can- get multiple hits.

I know IJN fears the B-17. But you do realize that the Allies fear teh Betty/Nells, don't you. Those things ALWAYS carry a torpedo, and can fly halfway across the Pacific. They will attack unescorted, just like B-17s. And when that torp hits, it HURTs (unlike a 500 lb bomb vs. a IJN BB or CA).

I can see this "discussion" exploding rather quickly. Testy subject.



-F-

[Nikademus]

In UV there was rule that made LBA's in naval attack mode only attack with 1 bomb but i do not think that is the case anymore.

[Feinder]

^
|

I guess I'm "showing my age then". I always thought LBs only got one die roll for a hit (and a max of one hit) in WitP also.

If that's not the case in WitP, I'd be all for putting it back in (and I don't know why it was changed in the first place). I thought it was a good rule.

-F-

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Here is simple idea of how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...


Right now I am 99.99% sure that every single bomb aircraft carries have potential of individual hit on target!

Therefore we get extremely unrealistic high count of hits on all kind of targets (especially if aircraft is carrying many bombs like 12 for B-17 and 40 for B-29 for example).


So... why not calculate the whole bomb load as _SINGLE_ weapon and only calculate the number of bombs for effect if hit happens?


In other words the individual bombs would seize to exist and bomb streams would become irrelevant (in any case I think that should be so because, as example, if B-17 drops 12 bombs alongside a ships it is completely different matter than when it drops perpendicular to it and I think WitP always uses the formula for most optimistic case)!


What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"

Just curious, but unless it's been changed I thought the rules stated that a B-17 (all level bombers) can only get a maximum of one hit per attack on shipping.

Would you further explain the details of this new mechanic, in terms of how hits would be (exactly) determined? (Like in a formula.)

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

The urban (game) ledgends of the B-17s...

I'm actually fairly sure (see, I sound just the same), that LEVEL BOMBERS in NavAtk mode, can only get one hit already (even if they carry 8 in the trunk). It represents them dropping them all in a stick.

DIVE BOMBERS and TORPEDO PLANES can get multiple hits, if they have multiple bombs (like the 2x 30kg bombs, and the 1x 250kg bomb of a Val).

In port, it's a different story. I believe they can get multiple hits on a (stationary) target in port. I don't really have a problem with that. It's not maneuvering like a ship in a TF. Doesn't mean they will get multiple hits, but that they -can- get multiple hits.

I know IJN fears the B-17. But you do realize that the Allies fear teh Betty/Nells, don't you. Those things ALWAYS carry a torpedo, and can fly halfway across the Pacific. They will attack unescorted, just like B-17s. And when that torp hits, it HURTs (unlike a 500 lb bomb vs. a IJN BB or CA).

I can see this "discussion" exploding rather quickly. Testy subject.



-F-

So that was never adjusted from UV, that Bettys still carry torpedoes at maximum range? I well remember TIMJOT trying to get someone to see the illogic of that. Guess in the end he was unsuccessful. [:(]

[testarossa]

They carry bombs for extended range. All strikes from Truk to Guadalcanal carry bombs only.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

They carry bombs for extended range. All strikes from Truk to Guadalcanal carry bombs only.

Conflicting reports. Which is it?

[testarossa]

Start Guadalcanal in head to head mode. Bring some ships and put betties and nells at truk on naval attack.

[Mike Scholl]

Might be a good idea to take a look at exactly what we are talking about. A Dive Bomber would generally carry one bomb because the method of attack was inherently more accurate. With skilled pilots it could exceed 50% even against naval targets. In contrast, a level bomber is much less accurate at hitting a "point" target, or a moving one. So in general it carries multiple bombs to increase the possibility of a hit by one of them. At lower levels, accuracy is improved, but so is flak interference. Glide bombing, such as practice by many US formations during the war, was a compromise. It didn't produce the accuracy of Dive Bombing, but it didn't require the training or skill level either. Perfect for the fighter-bombers (who's primary mission was air-to-air) of the 2nd half of the war.
And with the increasing number of A/C available hits would still be obtained.

Low level "skip" and "para-frag" bombing proved quite accurate with trained crews and tough fast twin-engined bombers. Because of the highly inflamable nature of most Japanese planes (due to huge feul loads), it was mostly an Allied practice, and limited to a few specialized squadrons. The most inherantly accurate method of delivering a bomb on target was the Kamikaze. With a skilled pilot and no interference it should have been about 99%. The problem was that it was an expensive and "last-gasp" tactic that really wouldn't come into play until skilled pilots were very few, and CAP and FLAK mighty and abundent.

For Naval strikes, I would say that limiting each level bomber to a single hit possibility is in general the most accurate solution. I know there were exceptions, but for the sake of being able to play at all, the rules need to be guided by the normal results. Most of the rest of the attack methods cited involved only one bomb anyway (skip being an exception that could easily be dealt with by giving the few squadrons allowed to use it a slightly increased accuracy base). Overall, the "no more than one hit per plane limit" to naval strikes seems quite reasonable, with the actual chances of a hit being governed by attack type and pilot skill.

[Crimguy]

From the manual, Section 7.2.2.10 (top of p.130)

[b]
• No level bomber will hit a ship with more than one of its bombs on any particular Mission (they assumed to spread out over such a distance that at best one hit will occur from any particular bomber).[/b]

Are we saying this rule is no longer in effect?

[Yamato hugger]

My opinion for what its worth is they should have a modifier built in as to AC type hitting targets. To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat. While B-17 (et al) were very effective at bombing factories ect, they werent terribly useful in an anti-ship mode. Likewise, dive bombers were never used to any significant degree vs factory targets.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

My opinion for what its worth is they should have a modifier built in as to AC type hitting targets. To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat. While B-17 (et al) were very effective at bombing factories ect, they werent terribly useful in an anti-ship mode. Likewise, dive bombers were never used to any significant degree vs factory targets.

Level bombers did occasionally hit ships, just not often. (The hit rate was negligible, about 1%.)

B-17s, by the way, were the first planes to use the skip bombing technique at Rabaul in 1942. When perfected, the hit rate from these attacks spiked up to over 70%. This practice can be abused in the game, I'll admit that (not all pilots were trained for this), but then a lot of stuff in the game isn't exactly along historical lines. (Most of it on the Japanese side, early. [;)])

[Feinder]

Just because you don't know specificially of where they hit something (or that they happen to miss at Midway), doesn't mean they weren't good at it. The very mission to which the B-17 and B-24 were initially concieved was for ANTI-SHIPPING, not strategic bombing. Many of the squadrons of the Pacific were used in anti-shipping (easy enough to pull up the sqdn histories). If they never hit anything, do think they would still have been using B-24s off of Korea in ANTI-SHIPPING patrols in the 1950s...?

-F-