Netties question

[Streptokok]

WITP AE isn´t balanced and it shouldn´t be
 
Nor is historicaly accurate.
So its unbalanced and historicaly unaccurate?
 
That sux even more...

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

WITP AE isn´t balanced and it shouldn´t be
 
Nor is historicaly accurate.
So its unbalanced and historicaly unaccurate?

That sux even more...

Is there a game more historically accurate? Certainly not of the scope of this game.

As for loosing Netties, you might be loosing them due to radar coverage helping the allied fighters. I think radar is being tweaked in patch 2.

[John Lansford]

Well, I'd like my "crap Allied bombers" to actually bomb something.  My experience has been opposite of Streptokok's.  My Hudsons and Blenheims and Marauders attack a base or TF with fighter CAP over it, and they either all get shot down or return to base without bombing anything.  The rare times my P-40's escort them (usually from PM or Burma), they meet 40+ Oscars and end up returning then too, only with fighter losses to go with the bomber losses.  The only time they actually make a bombing run is if the hordes of Oscars don't show up for some reason, and then of course the bombers don't hit anything.

[FirstPappy]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, I'd like my "crap Allied bombers" to actually bomb something.  My experience has been opposite of Streptokok's.  My Hudsons and Blenheims and Marauders attack a base or TF with fighter CAP over it, and they either all get shot down or return to base without bombing anything.  The rare times my P-40's escort them (usually from PM or Burma), they meet 40+ Oscars and end up returning then too, only with fighter losses to go with the bomber losses.  The only time they actually make a bombing run is if the hordes of Oscars don't show up for some reason, and then of course the bombers don't hit anything.

Reading this post plus the OP, could it be some kind of AI advantage? Try experimenting with the head-to-head setting for a few turns.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out.

For what it's worth, I appreciate the occasional historical nugget, and I thought it was considerate of you to start adding the "HISTORY" header to avoid the occasional confusion that arose when there was ambiguity as to whether an item was a historical nugget or a game mechanic comment.

[modrow]

A bit off-topic:

Herwin

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

just want to take this occasion to tell you that I actually always enjoy your posts a lot, so keep them coming [:)].

A bit on-topic:

Gentlemen,

I tend to notice this strange effect: No matter which side I play, my units never perform as they should, whereas the enemy can do just about everthing. [:'(]. There really must be some bias, only question is whether it truly is in the game engine.

Hartwig

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

You did not provide whole reports, at the end there should be info about your CAP and how many of them actually flew. But from what I can see here CAP only had 13 minutes from the moment of detection until attacks occurred. That is 13 minutes to climb to 17000-22000 feet. Note that raids were not accurately detected, it was thought they would arrive at 22000 and 19000 feet while they were at 17000, so those that did manage to get to intercept altitude had to drop down again, loosing more time. Also all 3 fighter types you had there only have machine guns, no cannons at all.
Low gun value with very little time to get into position and fire on bombers gives poor CAP results.

Now if the things were reverse results would probably be some more casualties on Japanese side. Reasons for this are many: Allies have better radars and have them earlier, early detection gives more time to CAP to position themselves and wait for incoming bombers. Allied fighters in general have better gun value than their Japanese counterparts, while Japanese bombers have no armor and lower durability. Nell/Betty had long range because of the fuel they carried, but that same fuel was the reason they burned so easily after few hits.

Increasing durability in editor and giving bombers armor and better guns would make them tougher.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

Bombers in RL were generally unable to fly unexcorted daylight strikes, without taking disproportionate casualties. So Bettys seems to be OK so far. On the contrary Allied bombers, particularly 4Es, often seem way too durable (if only because repair seems to be non-issue, at least for AI). Historically, unexcorted daylight raids even by B-24 were too costly (even against roughly equal numbers of Ki-43), only B-29 were able to fly without escorts, and mostly because Japan's fighter units already were decimated and overstretched (numbers to absorb the losses and lack of fuel on Home Islands helped too). In this game, Zeroes regularly damage half to all of B-17s in a small strike, but instead of being grounded for a week or two, the Allied unit returns on the next day. On the other hand, 4Es don't seem to do that much damage (at least in groups of less than 20).

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

This is whats bothering me:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna


Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

If these were Netties flying at least 70% wouldnt come back from this attacks.
Unbalanced, unhistorical, unrealistic.

Your main problem is the plane, I think. Nate and Oscar Ia are useless planes, they have only two 7,7 mm machine guns. Oscar Ib is slightly better, it has one heavy machine gun with the light MG.

So my suggestion is that you upgrade those planes to Oscar Ic ASAP. Oscar Ic will kill unescorted Blenheims, trust me.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: FatR

In this game, Zeroes regularly damage half to all of B-17s in a small strike, but instead of being grounded for a week or two, the Allied unit returns on the next day.

Which is a bit of a problem, at least early war. Parts for the B-17's weren't that easy to come by and they really were grounded.

I think the accuracy rating for the A6M2 cannon is a bit low. Muzzle velocity wasn't that low (pretty close to the hispano IIRC) and it doesn't seem like that accuracy should be half of the hispano. Was there something wrong with the ordnance used? Wobbly? Wondering if the dev's are looking at a tweak there?

Historicaly we know that B-17's made only a very few unescorted raids on Rebaul early war and the losses were terrible. I have never been able to replicate them in game.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: FatR

In this game, Zeroes regularly damage half to all of B-17s in a small strike, but instead of being grounded for a week or two, the Allied unit returns on the next day.

Which is a bit of a problem, at least early war. Parts for the B-17's weren't that easy to come by and they really were grounded.

I think the accuracy rating for the A6M2 cannon is a bit low. Muzzle velocity wasn't that low (pretty close to the hispano IIRC) and it doesn't seem like that accuracy should be half of the hispano. Was there something wrong with the ordnance used? Wobbly? Wondering if the dev's are looking at a tweak there?

Historicaly we know that B-17's made only a very few unescorted raids on Rebaul early war and the losses were terrible. I have never been able to replicate them in game.

Three factors:

1. It had a different trajectory from the rifle-calibre machine guns.
2. Limited ammunition on the aircraft.
3. The IJN rapidly ran out of 20 mm ammunition stocks at the beginning of the war due to a failure to plan for wartime usage levels.