Ground bombing is borked, part II

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

There often is no option but to use a clear terrain hex. You have to move through them or occupy them to avoid getting flanked. Maybe AI doesn't know how to flank but always attacks directly, but real people do...

In those circumstances it is incumbent upon the player to prepare adequately. If one must stay on a clear terrain, bring adequate AA or arrange for CAP. If forced to retreat through clear terrain prepare in advance before defeated in battle. If none of this possible, tough, that is war.

Alfred

[USSAmerica]

I have the solution!!!  A new HR.  Ban all 4E bombers!!! [:D]

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Erkki

There often is no option but to use a clear terrain hex. You have to move through them or occupy them to avoid getting flanked. Maybe AI doesn't know how to flank but always attacks directly, but real people do...

In those circumstances it is incumbent upon the player to prepare adequately. If one must stay on a clear terrain, bring adequate AA or arrange for CAP. If forced to retreat through clear terrain prepare in advance before defeated in battle. If none of this possible, tough, that is war.

Alfred

Playing the Japanese, looking at my in-use AAA device numbers, I have guns to provide what Allied players would probably consider "adequate AAA" of 150+ heavy guns per hex to less than 10 hexes on the entire map. Even 150+ probably wont shoot down a 4E bomber more than one every other raid(lol) but its better than nothing.

I stand behind my opinion of ground bombing being "borked" and giving way off the scale results in certain situations because the bomb runs and damage are calculated bomber by bomber instead of per formation, as long as those same bombers still retain their formation bonus against CAP and AAA, every time that they do not attack squad by squad, uncoordinated, when they would suffer more from AAA and especially CAP, as those raids would be impossible to escort which they most definitely should be with those results, for a single formation, against land units spread over a 40nm hex.

Posts by me, herwin, PaxMondo and obvert earlier in this thread...


Alfred, the Japanese player is also able to "abuse" the R&D as well as the production system to his advantage. I suppose the Allied player must destroy those factories and R&D plants to avoid meeting Ki-100s by mid-43 and jets by early 1945. If he is unable to that, too bad, as such is war. However, the WitPAE still remains a computer game, one that I'm going to play probably thousands of hours before I reach 1945 and the ultimate defeat of Japan in my PBEM. During that journey, I'm going to have some "fun and dangerous situations" and I hope my opponent is also. Abusing Japanese production, night bombing, moving restricted LCUs by land, non-basehex invasions, fragment-paradrops, single-ship TFs/massed xAKL pickets and many other things fall under "gaming the game" to me. Allowed by the game? Of course. Realistic? Not always. Historical? Rarely. WAD? Almost never. ...and fun? Some times to one player until his opponent complains or just quits if it gets bad enough, but often to neither.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have the solution!!!  A new HR.  Ban all 4E bombers!!! [:D]

It seems as if some JFBs are heading that way. [:)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have the solution!!!  A new HR.  Ban all 4E bombers!!! [:D]

Agreed. Shall we implement this solution immediately in our game? [;)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: rader

Better results, ok but 26 times better results? [8|]

Attack mode should make more of a difference than bomb load for ground attack (unlike city attack).

Why do you think they invented dive bombing and fighter-bombers? Because level bombers are crap at hitting anything smaller than a city block.

Except 200 B-29s at 6000 feet hit 200 icity blocks with 20,000 LBS per plane. When you compare this to dive bombing it's nuts. Not that 200 DBs could bomb in tight quarters without committing widespread fratricide . . .

Jsut for grins I ran the below attack in my current May 1945 game. It's not exactly congruent to yours. I only had one sighted Japanese unit not in a base hex in range of my B-29 base on Sakhalin Island, and it was a fortress. It was not in Move mode, and was, obviously, fortified. Terrain is wooded. It was also not reconned in any way. I bombed at 6000 feet, no fighter escort. Only B-29s, several models. I didn't play with COs. They were rested, but not every unit is filled out. The weather was rainy.

Japanese losses were 10 squads KIA, and 2 guns.

I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on 3rd Border Defense Fortress, at 112,42 , near Mutankiang

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3
B-29-25 Superfort x 71
B-29B Superfort x 164

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
993 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 14 disabled
Guns lost 15 (2 destroyed, 13 disabled)


Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 36 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 45 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Great example, Bull. I would suspect that the force that you've deployed in your example would be comparable to those that Strat bombed Tokyo in March 1945. By definition, that would be an 'open' hex with lots of flammable houses, etc. One night's worth of low altitude strat bombing reduced a sizeable chunk of the city to cinders, killing upwards of 100,000.

By comparison, your size force killed the equivalent of 100 guys and two guns? It's all about the fortifications and terrain.

I've got no problem with the way ground bombing is modelled in the game. Open terrain is a killing field by either land attack or air attack. Woe unto the undefended / unprotected ground troops that get caught by bombers in such a scenario.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have the solution!!!  A new HR.  Ban all 4E bombers!!! [:D]

Agreed. Shall we implement this solution immediately in our game? [;)]

Ha..... 1 day after you agree to actually use a beta build. [:D]

No, wait. You would probably agree to that. Nevermind. [:'(]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Ha..... 1 day after you agree to actually use a beta build. [:D]

Agreed. Shall we implement this solution immediately in our game?

No, wait. You would probably agree to that. Nevermind. [:'(]

Doh! [:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think what most players are seeing is: Now bomb the next turn. The disrupted units will not have fully recovered, and will be destroyed. 3 turns, you will have nothing left.

If I were really bored today I'd run two more turns and see. But I'm not that bored.

But, as has already been pointed out, this isn't going to get changed in spite of the game consequences. LoBaron is correct, for PBEM HR's can be erected to mitigate. For AI players, you have to break out the editor.

As a moose with some repute as an AI-only player I have to say that this test was the first time I've ever even considered using hundreds of B-29s to bomb an LCU in the open. Never even occurred to me. I use them historically, for City strikes 90%, and about 10% for Port strikes in the HI where I suspect or know there are fuel-starved ships squatting at the pier.

I have used lesser LBs to Ground attack in Burma, Java, Sumatra, and Indo-China, often to try to finish off routed units in the bush. Results have been unsatisfactory. One unit in northern Burma I've been strafing at 100 ft. with P-47s daily for over six months. At this point it's more a point of comedy than anything else for me.

The AI abhors leaving LCUs in the open pretty much everywhere except China. Most ground attacks necessarily are on some level of urban terrain and don't score division-killing numbers. For PBEM players I'd say again: just say no to HRs. Put your men in cities, not the fields.

Moose,

Not disagreeing with you here. And test or not hardly matters, there is plenty of data in lot's of AAR's now to examine. Like you, I only am able to play AI. However, when you play on the other side of the AI as IJ, you will see B-29's (and other 4E's) routinely coming in at 4000-6000 ft at night at any target in range. Like I said, good news is that there is always the editor.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Great example, Bull. I would suspect that the force that you've deployed in your example would be comparable to those that Strat bombed Tokyo in March 1945. By definition, that would be an 'open' hex with lots of flammable houses, etc. One night's worth of low altitude strat bombing reduced a sizeable chunk of the city to cinders, killing upwards of 100,000.

By comparison, your size force killed the equivalent of 100 guys and two guns? It's all about the fortifications and terrain.

I've got no problem with the way ground bombing is modelled in the game. Open terrain is a killing field by either land attack or air attack. Woe unto the undefended / unprotected ground troops that get caught by bombers in such a scenario.

An aside to my attack. I ordered the bombing the day before, but nothing flew due to weather. On the next day reported above roughly 50% of the units launched but failed to link up and RTBed. Large-scale Allied 4e bombing is not a light switch to be flipped on and off.

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one, even in WITP days when I could routinely get 900 B-29s over a HI city at night. In that sense 4e bombing IS "borked" against the Allies.

Imagine the JFB wailing if Tokyo could be reduced in one attack. A-bombs don't even do that.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Great example, Bull. I would suspect that the force that you've deployed in your example would be comparable to those that Strat bombed Tokyo in March 1945. By definition, that would be an 'open' hex with lots of flammable houses, etc. One night's worth of low altitude strat bombing reduced a sizeable chunk of the city to cinders, killing upwards of 100,000.

By comparison, your size force killed the equivalent of 100 guys and two guns? It's all about the fortifications and terrain.

I've got no problem with the way ground bombing is modelled in the game. Open terrain is a killing field by either land attack or air attack. Woe unto the undefended / unprotected ground troops that get caught by bombers in such a scenario.

An aside to my attack. I ordered the bombing the day before, but nothing flew due to weather. On the next day reported above roughly 50% of the units launched but failed to link up and RTBed. Large-scale Allied 4e bombing is not a light switch to be flipped on and off.

Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one, even in WITP days when I could routinely get 900 B-29s over a HI city at night. In that sense 4e bombing IS "borked" against the Allies.

Imagine the JFB wailing if Tokyo could be reduced in one attack. A-bombs don't even do that.

Yes, my analogy is imprecise, but the destructive potential of this number of B-29s is clearly on display in my strat bombing (RL) example. Any damage shy of that (e.g., your LCU attack example) to entrenched troops is quite plausible in my mind. In other words, Japanese players are getting off easy most of the time against the B29 onslaught if this is the way that such LCU bombing is modelled.

I wouldn't necessarily cry if 25% of Tokyo got so cremated in one full-scale low night strat bombing. I mean, it would suck from the Japanese player's perspective, but that's what happened IRL, so why should I complain? The way to prevent Tokyo from getting firebombed? Keep Allied B-29s out of range. Doom on Japanese players that don't recognize this simple overarching goal to the Japanese war effort.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Not disagreeing with you here. And test or not hardly matters, there is plenty of data in lot's of AAR's now to examine. Like you, I only am able to play AI. However, when you play on the other side of the AI as IJ, you will see B-29's (and other 4E's) routinely coming in at 4000-6000 ft at night at any target in range. Like I said, good news is that there is always the editor.

I keep meaning to hold my nose and try to play the Japanese, but I keep putting it off.

I have no problem using the Editor to make the game be all you want it to be, or not be. I used it in my current game to adjust some aircraft maintenance levels, to pump up Perth's shipyard by 2000 tons, and to make my dad the CO of the sub he served in. (I was very careful with her in Super E time, and she's still alive, although she's been DCed three times to 50 float damge.)

Ironically, I also, based on a first game frustration with strat bombing and arguments here that TInian was too small in the game, boosted Tinian to a Level 9 AF, intending to do a LeMay on the HI. Then I completely ignored invading the Marianas in the second game. Oops. The Japanese happily made the region around Tinian a no-go zone for the entire game. I still have to route every west-bound convoy south around Truk and all of the Marianas.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one,

If you play Downfall, you will see it frequently. Fires will get up >100,000 at the end of the run, and the next day still be buring +50,000 with all the accompanying losses. I believe that is a firestorm....

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one,

If you play Downfall, you will see it frequently. Fires will get up >100,000 at the end of the run, and the next day still be buring +50,000 with all the accompanying losses. I believe that is a firestorm....

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Doom on Japanese players that don't recognize this simple overarching goal to the Japanese war effort.

Were that all Japanese players were so eminently reasonable, exceptionally educated, and all around swell as you are yourself, sir. Kudos. Bravo, and kudos. [:)]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Your point about Tokyo brings up a very, very old debate going back to WITP. Incendiary weapons are not explicity modeled in the code. Firestorms are theoreticaly possible per the devs, but I've never seen one,

If you play Downfall, you will see it frequently. Fires will get up >100,000 at the end of the run, and the next day still be buring +50,000 with all the accompanying losses. I believe that is a firestorm....

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Yes, if I understand you question. You see a lot more factories damaged, and even if no attack, more factories damage until the fires=0.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Exaclty. I believe from memory that the devs stated that a firestorm would only destroy the Manpower stocks. It should eat up HI and LI produciton facilities, remove refineries completely, and severely reduce Resources if present.

[witpqs]

As you guys are pointing out, it's true that the modeling is (of course) imperfect, and it's off in both directions for different things. We can want to get each thing right, but in the real world it ain't gonna happen. Even though Michael keeps fixing many things there are just too many in the long run. And, it goes beyond 4EB - naval attack (as I've mentioned before) has also been shown to have many issues. Just one is what someone mentioned here in terms of torpedo ordnance available to IJ air groups, especially early in the game. If you play with a modest amount of restraint, but not hobbling house rules, you get a good contest.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Exaclty. I believe from memory that the devs stated that a firestorm would only destroy the Manpower stocks. It should eat up HI and LI produciton facilities, remove refineries completely, and severely reduce Resources if present.

Oh - I thought a firestorm was supposed to take shots at everything there.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Yeah, but what does that mean? Do you see damaged factories converted to destroyed factories at such-and-such rate?

Exaclty. I believe from memory that the devs stated that a firestorm would only destroy the Manpower stocks. It should eat up HI and LI produciton facilities, remove refineries completely, and severely reduce Resources if present.

That's my recollection as well. That the fires (which are stoked by a firestorm) further destroy those production facilities, refineries and so forth that were hitherto merely damaged. Such factory destruction yields considerably more strat bombing points than merely damaging the factories. Destroyed factory points cannot be repaired, IIRC.

My (ongoing) questions regarding the 100,000+ fires are, "OK-I get that there are some fires burning out of control for a couple days. A firestorm by any other name. Got it. So-how does that formulaic 100,000 fires translate towards factory destruction?" I do not recall any answer to this other than 'it's in the code and therefore not subject to the light of day'.