I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't used to attack shipping...

[Nikademus]

Pry's on top of that one....and i did some fiddling of my own vis-a-vis B-17 production for Pacific waters.

[tsimmonds]

In my first PBEM game I didn't use 4E bombers on naval attack till 9/42.

And then you started? What did Roger do that p1ssed you off?[;)]

Probably won't against Irrelevant.

Probably won't what? Use 4E bombers on naval attack, or restrain yourself?[;)]

[Halsey]

He sorties the entire IJN fleet together. Refuses to break them up, and only sends them out when Allied CV's are spotted.[;)]

The downside to this for him is that I have lots of little incursions all over the Pacific and Indian Ocean.[;)]

We tighten the noose...

Oh, and I should add,. The Allied subs are worthless in attacking anything, and this is with the sub doctrines off. The 4E bombers have been making up the deficit. Dud torpedoes? Try 95% duds and misses. The Allied subs have sunk around 25 ships in 11 months.

[tsimmonds]

4E bombers vs ships is not one but two completely different things.

4E bombers vs stationary ships should be vicious. The owners of such ships are gambling and must expect to pay the ante.

4E bombers vs moving ships were notoriously ineffective. It was almost impossible to hit a maneuvering target from 20,000 feet. In the time it takes a bomb to fall that far a ship moving at 15 kts is a quarter of a mile from where it was when the bombs were released. Plus, a 4E bomber does require a bomb run of some seconds duration that is relatively undisturbed by maneuvering such as might be required to track a ship that was maneuvering in an effort to avoid being hit by bombs.

[Halsey]

I will say that so far most of my 4E naval missions have been against TF's at base hexes. Only a couple have flown against TF's at sea. So I guess you could say that the ones at the bases were stationary.[;)]

Boy are they deadly after their experience has improved![:D]

[tsimmonds]

Boy are they deadly after their experience has improved!

Betcha! And don't think that I don't realize that building experience is the whole idea behind all your futile high-level attacks....[;)]

[Halsey]

[:D][:D][:D]

At least I'm not attacking empty hexes!

[tsimmonds]

At least I'm not attacking empty hexes!

Hey, I'm trying, but you run away too fast!

[tsimmonds]

Calling Mr. Bose.......Mr Bose to the Imperial Palace please...

Just caught this one, LOL!

[Halsey]

Maybe to limit the # of 4E squadrons flying naval strike missions per airfield would help?

One? To simulate a patrol formation of 4E bombers. Who knows?

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

4E bombers vs moving ships were notoriously ineffective. It was almost impossible to hit a maneuvering target from 20,000 feet. In the time it takes a bomb to fall that far a ship moving at 15 kts is a quarter of a mile from where it was when the bombs were released. Plus, a 4E bomber does require a bomb run of some seconds duration that is relatively undisturbed by maneuvering such as might be required to track a ship that was maneuvering in an effort to avoid being hit by bombs.

Gee, how can you say they were inaccurate? They actually dropped some close enough to make it in the picture! [8|]

[Feinder]

I love that pic. Soryu, right? I'm thinking of using the image for the Midway scenario (released to beta btw).

I think those bombs are pretty close, considering they were dropped from 2 miles up. True, not a hit, or close enough for a "near miss". But also consider the fact that most targets that the heavies are going after, are -NOT- aircraft carriers or heavy cruisers running "balls-to-wall at 34 kts, hard-to-port -and- everyone lean to the left for that little extra umph!" You're talking about mostly freighters and transports moving at 14 kts and more worried about hitting (or being hit) by the other freighter next to them, while they try to remember if it's time to zig or zag.

-F-

[Mike Scholl]

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

[scout1]

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

I agree with you in general, but this particular case is a bit skewed per your example.
As you point out the japanese did not use the BB's for bombardment. So we, really can't say how effective they might have been (though you'd expect to be able to draw some rough conclusions from the Allied examples). However, the 4e ship bombardments did occur in RL. We have some indication how these panned out. Therefore, we can conclude that the game engine is too effective/accurate for 4E bomber runs (maybe 2E as well, don't know). And the BB bombardment (in fairness) needs to be adjusted based on the Allied examples (RL) and modified for any particular "specifica;" conditions that may have existed between the 2 services.

[bradfordkay]

My experience has been that the heavy bombers are pretty worthless against TFs at sea, but can be deadly against those in port. Every once in a while they get a lucky hit against a moving TF, but not very often. Like some others, my feelings are that the bombers are able to operate on a too frequent basis, not that they are too accurate.

[scout1]

My experience has been that the heavy bombers are pretty worthless against TFs at sea, but can be deadly against those in port.

Has anyone every run a series of test cases concerning level bomber against moving ships ? I may do this, but was curious if anyone has previously performed this.

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Another good point. I don't feel there's a whole lot of interest at Matrix now, though, to take the pains required to truly change the bombardment "hole," as it depends not only on the routines for damage from ship fire but also is wedded to base/supply/resupply rules and issues. It's pretty clear that Gary wanted these ships to "amaze" players (better to say "amuse" players?) on the one hand, and on the other I simply can't see Wood diving into the model that deeply. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

In lieu of changes, house rules might be conceived, but even those fail to adequately address the problems without creating other ones. Too many B-17s? Oops! Well, we could cut that down in the editor. Level bombers hitting too many ships? Let's not send those guys out then! Bettys/Nells shouldn't have such effective torpedoes? Well, I'm not sure I want to go that far. And so on.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: scout1

My experience has been that the heavy bombers are pretty worthless against TFs at sea, but can be deadly against those in port.

Has anyone every run a series of test cases concerning level bomber against moving ships ? I may do this, but was curious if anyone has previously performed this.

I haven't run any "test" but I've seen it in game a lot in UV, and now fairly much in WitP, probably enough to know not much has changed on this score.

Want to tear Japanese shipping around New Guinea/New Britain a new hole? Build up Port Moresby, fly in a hundred or so B-25s and Mauraders and B-17s, put them on Naval Attack with 10% search, set their altitude at 1000/2000/4000 feet (doesn't much matter from what I can see, so I usually let it ride at 1000) and . . . any and all Japanese ships foolish enough to shape a course under normal range of those bombers will be dutifully . . . savaged. Oh sure, there will be turns when only a few bombers fly, or fail to find their targets, and then they might miss completely, too, once in awhile, but over the long haul, or even several attacks, any shipping within range of those bombers will be road kill. Once the experience levels of those bomber crews jumps up over 60, skip bombing will result in higher hit rates still. (Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the model has it wrong with skip bomb attacks insofar as crews return as a rule super fatigued with very low morale--what that's about I don't know, maybe a simplistic mechanic to prevent this tactic from being used all that often. Because of this I leave my bombers set for regular Naval Attack at 1000 feet, where the results are almost as good, meanwhile the crews rarely come back tattered.)

That's on the Allied side. The Japanese could do the same thing, and early in the game they do occasionally, but as it usually works out, by the time the Japanese have a shot at Allied shipping again (later in the game, say, 1943) with their level bombers it's the case that the Allies are making invasions with unbelievable air cover from carriers and/or land-based fighters. That Papua New Guinea/New Britain area in 1942, though, is a natural place to find this kind of slaughter, as Japanese players often, from my experience, try to force the issue there. And against competent play on the Allied side the result is, as it must be, what I've described above.

Hudsons and Martins are similarly effective. I've already ruined my PBEM opponent's day several times flying those birds off the northern Oz coastline to interdict his movements in and around around Keopang. And my B-17s based on Darwin regularly lash out farther still toward Kendari and such with very good effect on shipping (not to mention the port/airfield damage they dish out).

Also, the same pertains to bombers patrolling at maximum range, though in this case the hits have somewhat less effect due to the smaller missions they're loaded out with. From what I can tell, the Naval Search facility of bombers reaching out far is not decreased any, so about as many attacks result at maximum range assuming enemy shipping within normal strike range is not found.

The game model in general is 1) too bloody and 2) too fast. Why it was designed that way I haven't a clue. One might suppose it wouldn't have required any more thought or work to tone everything down some. But there you go.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Mmmh, apples and oranges.... We should distinguish between A) 'being able to do sth but unwilling to do it for some reason', i.e. Jap BBs not used for bombardments, or no convoys until too late, and B) 'badly wanting to do sth but being unable to do it or ineffective in doing so', i.e. CV air strike coordination [:D], Jap ASW, Allied 4E bombers hitting moving targets...

IMO 4E bombing accuracy in WitP is okay, there are just too many of them available for massed strikes. The Allies may have wanted to base 200+ B-17s at Port Moresby to bomb the heck out of every convoy to/from/at Rabaul - but it was impossible to stack and supply that many 4E-planes at that place IRL. In WitP, it's no problem as soon as the first large base force shows up. I still think it is a good idea to base the maintenance and 'air base capacity' requirements on number of engines rather than number of airframes, and to do away with the 'above 250 air support anything goes'-rule. This should lower the number of operational 4E bombers amassed at any single base to a more reasonable level.