Question for Mike Wood regarding 4E and 2E level bomber attacks...

[Apollo11]

Please note that this is not anti Allies post - this is aimed for both sides!


Hi all,

IMHO the WitP was extremely playable and great fun even at v1.0 1+ years ago - best wargame that we ever had!!! [:D]

Continuous work on it (with upcoming v1.70 soon to be with us) made the game even better - thanks Mike! [&o]


Nonetheless few items/issues still remain that can't be properly dealt even with "House Rules".


The most, IMHO, problematic example is massive usage of 4E and 2E level bomber attacks even as early as 1942...

BTW, the night attacks were reduced in past patches (THANKS!) but if massed the 4E and 2E level bombers can still wreck total havoc.


Can something, please, be done with this?



Few Leo's ideas to fix this (I hope simple to implement):


#1
Heavy AA concentrations should throw of aim for level bombers (i.e. disrupt them). More experienced bomber crews should suffer less but they should still suffer (i.e. in WWII anyways much of AA was indented to create strong barrage effect to drive incoming bombers off aim).


#2
The 4E and 2E level bombers should suffer devastating damage when flying low in area that was protected by AA.

The AA should have most effect with enemy 4E and 2E level bombers flying low and then diminish as altitude rises.

Right now even several regiments of AA (100+ 75mm and 105mm AA guns) are almost useless against, for example, B-17 attacking from 6000 or 10000 ft which should not be the case at all (slow flying and big B-17 should present ideal targets for AA and should be devastated)...

BTW, if you guys recall, I did many many comprehensive tests with all kind of 4E and 2E bombers doing level attack from different altitudes but even when _EXTREME_ enemy AA was present it had almost no effect.


#3
IMHO we still have way to precise attacks in WitP. Navigation was very hard in WWII PTO and much more 4E and 2E level bombers should fail to find proper targets. More experienced bomber crews should suffer less but they should still suffer.


#4
Combined massed attacks by hundreds of aircraft was hard to achieve and coordinate.

If we already have, for example, penalty for CVs why don't we introduce the similar penalty for 4E and 2E level bombers as well?

The penalty should progressively drop from 1942 to 1945 (i.e. much much more problems in 1942 than in 1945) and should make those attack more piecemeal instead of group (i.e. that way we would get 2 good things: a) smaller groups of 4E and 2E level bombers doing less damage and b) smaller groups of attacking 4E and 2E level bombers more prone to enemy actions)!


#5
Overall effectiveness of 4E and 2E level bombers on target should decrease from current level for both day and night missions.


What do you say gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"

[paladin333]

Too good to be truth. [:D]

[ckk]

Have you checked out Nik's Mod 3.0 Severely restricts 4E's and bombloads and enhances Base AA making low level bombing dangerous.
This along with basically halving transport capacity is making my war much longer[8D]

[Speedysteve]

100% agreee ckk. Nik Mod 4.0 is son to be released with further improvements. Pay me £5 and you can get it [:D]

[ckk]

Sorry too busy playing 3.0. I want to get to the point where strategic bombing of the Home Islands and see how the enhanced AA works against it[;)]

[michaelm75au]

From testing I have found that there is a minimum altitude that heavy AA guns can't fire below. This mimimum appears to be a factor of the gun's normal ceiling and starts from 26K.

The dead zone lies between (not suprisingly) 6K and 9K feet.
Guns with max of 26K feet have a min of 7K.
Guns with max of 28K feet have a min of 7K.
Guns with max of 30K feet have a min of 8K.
Guns with max of 34K feet have a min of 9K.

Nik's mod attempts to counter this dead zone.

Michael

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Please note that this is not anti Allies post - this is aimed for both sides!


Hi all,

IMHO the WitP was extremely playable and great fun even at v1.0 1+ years ago - best wargame that we ever had!!! [:D]

Continuous work on it (with upcoming v1.70 soon to be with us) made the game even better - thanks Mike! [&o]


Nonetheless few items/issues still remain that can't be properly dealt even with "House Rules".


The most, IMHO, problematic example is massive usage of 4E and 2E level bomber attacks even as early as 1942...

BTW, the night attacks were reduced in past patches (THANKS!) but if massed the 4E and 2E level bombers can still wreck total havoc.


Can something, please, be done with this?



Few Leo's ideas to fix this (I hope simple to implement):



#2
The 4E and 2E level bombers should suffer devastating damage when flying low in area that was protected by AA.

The AA should have most effect with enemy 4E and 2E level bombers flying low and then diminish as altitude rises.

Right now even several regiments of AA (100+ 75mm and 105mm AA guns) are almost useless against, for example, B-17 attacking from 6000 or 10000 ft which should not be the case at all (slow flying and big B-17 should present ideal targets for AA and should be devastated)...

BTW, if you guys recall, I did many many comprehensive tests with all kind of 4E and 2E bombers doing level attack from different altitudes but even when _EXTREME_ enemy AA was present it had almost no effect.

Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

from 25k+ actually. I found that even a ceiling of 25500 produced the dead zone.

[Sardaukar]

Well, if one puts heavy AA ceiling to 25 000 the dead zone dissappears ?
Not bad, since I don't think that bombers are that accurate above 25 000 ft.

[Nikademus]

Yes...though bear in mind, that change alone wont make much difference.

[Speedysteve]

But ckk I need that £5 [;)]

[Feinder]

Do you mean that Flak doesn't fire below 7,000' in the stock game? Seems that it should be quite lethal...

Am I misunderstanding something?

-F-

[ckk]

Got to save my pence [:D] What happens if Nik starts charging for Mods[X(][X(][X(] Besides I don't have enough time to play 3.0[:@]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Do you mean that Flak doesn't fire below 7,000' in the stock game? Seems that it should be quite lethal...

Am I misunderstanding something?

-F-

Flak with a ceiling higher than 25,000 feet (i.e. heavy flak....the only guns with that kind of reach) will not fire below a set altitude based on a formula that looks at the ceiling value per micheal's list (based on tests we both did)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: ckk

Got to save my pence [:D] What happens if Nik starts charging for Mods[X(][X(][X(] Besides I don't have enough time to play 3.0[:@]

Are you tired of wearing a "hit me, i like it!" sign when flying your Ki-43
Are you sick to death of Kablammo?
Tired of seeing Grumman spin in his grave?


Try NikMod 4.0!!!

available at the low price of 1 slice of pepperoni pizza.

mmm mmm toasty!

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Do you mean that Flak doesn't fire below 7,000' in the stock game? Seems that it should be quite lethal...

Am I misunderstanding something?

-F-

Flak with a ceiling higher than 25,000 feet (i.e. heavy flak....the only guns with that kind of reach) will not fire below a set altitude based on a formula that looks at the ceiling value per micheal's list (based on tests we both did)

But what's the problem with this[&:]?

Heavy AA guns have a minimum range to effectively hit anything. A 90mm/105mm/3.7in AA gun will not hit many planes that come in at a low altitude (only by chance) and their shrapnels would be very dangerous to their own crews if fired that way. Low levels that is what AA-MG's and 20mm/40mm AA guns are for (btw, this one of the main problems the British faced when confronted by V-1 rockets flying at 2,500 feet)!

Sounds like a working feature of the game IMHO[:)]!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Sounds like a working feature of the game IMHO[:)]!

In theory. Yes, though a bit severe. From what i've been told in BTR, the min alt restriction is less severe at around 2000 feet for the heavies. However in BTR if you attack at 6000 feet with your heavies your going to have quite a different experience than you will in WitP. I had a rather unfortunate incident with a P47 gathering..they are still not speaking to me.

Thats the crux. A minimum altitude rule of itself is not ahistorical. Its what's happening in the game that makes it bad (IMO) Land based flak is a non factor. 6000 foot attacks are the rule with the base steamrolled in 24 hours and kept that way through constant attacks.

[ckk]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: ckk

Got to save my pence [:D] What happens if Nik starts charging for Mods[X(][X(][X(] Besides I don't have enough time to play 3.0[:@]

Are you tired of wearing a "hit me, i like it!" sign when flying your Ki-43
Are you sick to death of Kablammo?
Tired of seeing Grumman spin in his grave?


Try NikMod 4.0!!!

available at the low price of 1 slice of pepperoni pizza.

mmm mmm toasty
OMG[:@] Why did I have to go and give him that idea[X(]

[Speedysteve]

LOL.

Yes in BTR the limit is 2500. I can tell you this though., When you play BTR you experience TRUE flak. Right Nik? [;)]

His Jugs loved him after their jaunt to Holland. Oh look lets fly over a total of 60ish 88's + 100's LAA[:D]

P.S. Nik Mod 4.0 with a warm thanks for only £5. Bargain. PM me for further details

[Nikademus]

35 out of 100 P-47C pilots polled indicated that Nik should have a live grenade accidently roll under his cot before he could plan another strike mission.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Yes in BTR the limit is 2500. I can tell you this though., When you play BTR you experience TRUE flak.

Innocent question[;)]: Is this (only) a result of the BTR-engine or of the fact that there was "real" flak employed in the ETO (seems to me that the Germans employed more and better flak than the Japanese).

K

(And another innocent remark: and weren't Japanese 105mm AA guns only employed in fixed positions, somewhat heavy calibre to be moved around as we see it in the game...)