Game Balance "Achieved"...

[ADavidB]

Well, the good folks working on improving the game have reached another milestone - B-17s are now as readily damagable as Bettys or Nells:

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 47
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 27

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 14
P-38G Lightning x 23
B-17E Fortress x 52
B-24D Liberator x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 7 destroyed, 4 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 9 destroyed
P-38G Lightning: 10 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 18 destroyed, 16 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 6 destroyed, 19 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
16 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 5

Notice that I had a good number of escorts along - all experienced, all lead by good air leaders, all well rested, all with good morale. The heavy bombers were also all experienced, all lead by good air leaders, all well rested, all with good morale.

I guess those of us who want to attempt to shut down air fields with long range bombing will have to do something else.

Dave Baranyi

[Kereguelen]

Yes, you should have tried to conduct a naval bombardment of Rabaul. It's much easier and gives you better results[;)]

[Andy Mac]

I could be wrong but thats what 90 of the best fighters the Japaese have probably still with highly experienced pilots.

If you were flying at 6 - 12,000 feet I dont think that looks out of order his pilots must have been better than yours as they took out your escort at a heavy kill ratio and then made their runs against the bombers...

Also how much flak were you up against if low level against hefty flak as well as those fighters it doesnt look that out of order...

fogive my ignorance but were B17's & B 24's (especially the early variants) airborne tanks or were they vulnerable to fighters ?

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I could be wrong but thats what 90 of the best fighters the Japaese have probably still with highly experienced pilots.

If you were flying at 6 - 12,000 feet I dont think that looks out of order his pilots must have been better than yours as they took out your escort at a heavy kill ratio and then made their runs against the bombers...

Also how much flak were you up against if low level against hefty flak as well as those fighters it doesnt look that out of order...

fogive my ignorance but were B17's & B 24's (especially the early variants) airborne tanks or were they vulnerable to fighters ?

I was flying at 25,000 feet. The CAP took care of the bombers, not the flak.

Thanks for the comments -

Dave Baranyi

[Tom Hunter]

Isn't there a long thread about this already?

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Isn't there a long thread about this already?

Sure, but I had results this turn with escorts, and previously we were mainly discussing unescorted heavy bombers.

Dave Baranyi

[Halsey]

Here's an idea!
Let's just increase the production rate of bombers to make up for their deficency in defending themselves![:D]

Oh wait! That's already been done.[;)]

[Andy Mac]

25,000k ouch that does seem a lot of heavies to lose in one rid at that altitude could 90 fighters have scrambled that high in the time

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's an idea!
Let's just increase the production rate of bombers to make up for their deficency in defending themselves![:D]

Oh wait! That's already been done.[;)]

There was a very sane suggestion to increase durability for allied heavies. And reduce the number of Heavy bomber groups. And make them difficult to repair.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's an idea!
Let's just increase the production rate of bombers to make up for their deficency in defending themselves![:D]

Oh wait! That's already been done.[;)]

There was a very sane suggestion to increase durability for allied heavies.

I wonder why I've never seen such results in UV.

[Halsey]

I think that was Nik's solution in his new scenario.
Haven't tried it yet. I'm waiting for the "official" patch release first.[;)]

[Oliver Heindorf]

honestly, with those kill rates, the führer would have selected japanese pilots for the defense of the heimat.

[8|]

[testarossa]

In my PBEM I used small strikes. From Surabaya to Balikpapan - 12 B17E and 12 B17D, opposed by 36 A6M2. 3 bombers lost.

From Dacca to Hanoi (extended strike 12 hexes) 12 B17E opposed 24 Ki-27b, no losses.

I think, what Frag is hinting but isn't saying, that air model is abstract, when big number are involved, software somehow works with all the data like gun value, durability, speed, pilot exp etc, without actually looking which planes are involved in particular, and gives back averaged results. This thing is true for all air battles, so any tweaks will affect ALL air engagements. I think we don't want to see bullet-proof Betties, do we? (Just a guess of course).

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's an idea!
Let's just increase the production rate of bombers to make up for their deficency in defending themselves![:D]

Oh wait! That's already been done.[;)]

Although this comment, I believe, was made in jest it does illustrate a point.

From a game perspective all is well with the current system. Casualties may be too high but production is also and the two effects balance each other out to some extent to produce a reasonable historical result. Players who want strict historical accuracy in all ways will not be happy but then they never will be.

It seems just yesterday that people were complaining that allied heavies were invincible. Now I suppose they are worthless and should be left to transport supplies somewhere.

I think they work fine as long as you have reasonable expectations for their employment. Sending 85 bombers with a paltry fighter escort against 90 fighters and expecting to shut down a major airial complex just doesn't seem all that realistic.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

In my PBEM I used small strikes. From Surabaya to Balikpapan - 12 B17E and 12 B17D, opposed by 36 A6M2. 3 bombers lost.

From Dacca to Hanoi (extended strike 12 hexes) 12 B17E opposed 24 Ki-27b, no losses.

I think, what Frag is hinting but isn't saying, that air model is abstract, when big number are involved, software somehow works with all the data like gun value, durability, speed, pilot exp etc, without actually looking which planes are involved in particular, and gives back averaged results. This thing is true for all air battles, so any tweaks will affect ALL air engagements. I think we don't want to see bullet-proof Betties, do we? (Just a guess of course).

The one constant I see in the large loss rates ... is large numbers of defending fighers ... I've also seen this happen in pure fighter to fighter battles. My "theory" is that when larger ( over 50 or maybe it really has to be more than 70 ) fighters are on one side ... the other side will suffer losses which are too heavy. Escorted versus unescorted doesn't seem to matter as this result indicates.

[ADavidB]

In my PBEM I used small strikes. From Surabaya to Balikpapan - 12 B17E and 12 B17D, opposed by 36 A6M2. 3 bombers lost.

I've sent out a squadron of 12 B-17s. I got three of them back...

Dave Baranyi

[Halsey]

It was made in jest.[;)]

The underlying deficency with the entire mechanics of this game is the ability to overstack everything. Air, naval and LCU's when over concentrated, give very wild results. With nothing to limit players from doing this, it has become the norm instead of the exception.
If the mechanics allow it. The game will be played that way.
It's just the way this game was designed. Too bad it wasn't taken just a little bit further.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB
I've sent out a squadron of 12 B-17s. I got three of them back...
Dave Baranyi

There are a lot of strange results. Although reading AARs i think it's a tendency.

My Hurricane IIb group was wiped out by 2 groups of Ki-27b. That's 48 against 16. Jap exp -80, Brit exp 60. I expected at least to score some kills. Nope. In 4 turns Nates wiped Hurricanes out. Funny thing though, that 7 pilots survived the massacre and now sitting in Singapore without planes (thanks to formidable 2 rifle calibre machineguns which make Nate such a good fighter plane).

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: ADavidB
I've sent out a squadron of 12 B-17s. I got three of them back...
Dave Baranyi

There are a lot of strange results. Although reading AARs i think it's a tendency.

My Hurricane IIb group was wiped out by 2 groups of Ki-27b. That's 48 against 16. Jap exp -80, Brit exp 60. I expected at least to score some kills. Nope. In 4 turns Nates wiped Hurricanes out. Funny thing though, that 7 pilots survived the massacre and now sitting in Singapore without planes (thanks to formidable 2 rifle calibre machineguns which make Nate such a good fighter plane).

Maybe that's why your pilots survived[;)]

[treespider]

he underlying deficency with the entire mechanics of this game is the ability to overstack everything. Air, naval and LCU's when over concentrated, give very wild results. With nothing to limit players from doing this, it has become the norm instead of the exception.
If the mechanics allow it. The game will be played that way.
It's just the way this game was designed. Too bad it wasn't taken just a little bit further.

As I posted in the B-17 thread....

Just read an interesting account...

On November 11, 1943, the 307th participated in the largest (my emphasis added) aerial strike of the South Pacific War. In conjunction with United States naval elements, group bombers pounded enemy war and merchant ships at Rabaul, New Guinea. Amidst swarms of Japanese “Zeros” and heavy anti-aircraft fire, 307th aircraft released their bombs, leaving the port of Rabaul in complete ruin.

from...http://www.307bwassoc.org/history.htm

Cross-referenced with the US Strategic Bombing Survey p155

"Six days later (edit: 11 November) two Uunited States carrier forces again raided Rabaul, followed the same day by a strike of some 40 B-24's from Solomon bases."

Other sources put 185 carrier based planes in the raid.

Short of the B-29 Raids over Japan....IRL are there any instances of 100+ plane raids by the Allies not involving carriers?

Maybe the B-17's durability should be raised but at the same time as I've said earlier operational losses to everyone need to be drastically raised and possibly increase the supply usage of aircraft or bombers as well so sorties aren't being flown everyday or every other day for that matter. Notice iun the article the one pilot had only flown 30 some odd missions in one year. These changes would go a long way to preventing the European style air war we see being waged..