Playtesters dropped the ball!

[1089]

Originally posted by dgaad


I dare you to leave Lunga unguarded while I hold Shortland in force. I DARE YOU!!! *cough* apds *cough* sasebo marines *cough* night landing *cough cough*.

Hey, Bogart! You gotta give up them cigs...

kp

[dgaad]

Originally posted by 1089


Hey, Bogart! You gotta give up them cigs...

kp

Hello, my name is Humphrey. You may have seen me on the silver screen.

[Smiles]

While I'm working, and especially after work when I relax with friends and occasionally some nice ladies, I smoke Black Lung cigarettes.

[Lights Up]

Try some yourself. Share them with your pals. Be a gentleman and offer a light to the ladies.

[cough, hack, pieces of lung in hand quickly ignored, hand goes in pocket]

Next time I go out for a night on the town, I might see you there. Join me for a smoke.

[Fade]

[Capt Cliff]

Hey Guy's your missing the point of this thread! The B-17 was not used like a TBF or A-20! She was a monster to man handle, but a real lady when flying straight and level. The B-24 was a Bit#h! It took both pilots to fly her straight and level! They picked the B-24 pilots if they could bench press a D-6 cat! Anybody try using B-24's at 1000 feet? Do you get the same results as the B-17 at 1000 feet?

[Ron Saueracker]

You have no idea the can of worms you just opened. This is like jacking deer, place some apples below and wait in your tree hide. The deer will come...

[Wilhammer]

The fact of the matter is that B-17s hit almost nothing from level bombing, and the skip-bombing thing was a rarity and NOT an operational tactic. They used the mediums for that.

1. B-17 s were NOT deployed as low level bombers.
2. In the anti-shipping role, they proved to be a waste of aircraft and crew, accuracy using level bombing tactics of the period just did nothing.

In game terms, I think it should be a universal house rule to never use them below 6,000 feet.

In Frank's Guadalcanal Campaign, IIRC, he records every hit by a 17 from Aug 6th to January 1943, and I think it was 1 against a slow moving and damged destroyer, 1 against the stationary one during an express operation, and a couple of APs in ports. I can dig out the exacts later.

That translates to about 1 hit each month, and since we also have MacArthur's PNG campaign to manage, we can double that to 2 hits per month.

It is typical to get more than 2 hits in a day. This makes the B-17, IMHO, about 300% more effective in UV than it was in the war (assuming I did the math right ) at hitting at sea moving targets.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Wilhammer


In Frank's Guadalcanal Campaign, IIRC, he records every hit by a 17 from Aug 6th to January 1943, and I think it was 1 against a slow moving and damged destroyer, 1 against the stationary one during an express operation, and a couple of APs in ports. I can dig out the exacts later.

That translates to about 1 hit each month, and since we also have MacArthur's PNG campaign to manage, we can double that to 2 hits per month.

Your assumptions about the SoWestPac campaign are just that.

Kenney and MacArthur were comparatively much more aggressive in the use of 17s, and 17s were correspondingly much more effective in that theater.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
The fact of the matter is that B-17s hit almost nothing from level bombing, and the skip-bombing thing was a rarity and NOT an operational tactic. They used the mediums for that.

1. B-17 s were NOT deployed as low level bombers.
2. In the anti-shipping role, they proved to be a waste of aircraft and crew, accuracy using level bombing tactics of the period just did nothing.

In game terms, I think it should be a universal house rule to never use them below 6,000 feet.

In Frank's Guadalcanal Campaign, IIRC, he records every hit by a 17 from Aug 6th to January 1943, and I think it was 1 against a slow moving and damged destroyer, 1 against the stationary one during an express operation, and a couple of APs in ports. I can dig out the exacts later.

That translates to about 1 hit each month, and since we also have MacArthur's PNG campaign to manage, we can double that to 2 hits per month.

It is typical to get more than 2 hits in a day. This makes the B-17, IMHO, about 300% more effective in UV than it was in the war (assuming I did the math right ) at hitting at sea moving targets.

I generally have to agree with your comments regarding the B-17.

I posted this elsewhere, but I do so again here for clarification:

The B-17s are too powerful in the game.

The 43rd Bomb Wing first began training and flying some antisubmarine patrols along the New England coast with B-17, B-18, A-29 and LB-30 aircraft. In February 1942, it moved to the southwest Pacific and was assigned to Fifth Air Force, where it would operate from August 1942 to Nov. 1944. First equipped with B-17s and LATER CONVERTING TO THE B-24 IN MID-1943, the 43rd operated from bases in Australia, New Guinea and Owi Island, making numerous attacks on Japanese shipping in the Netherlands East Indies and the Bismarck Archipelago.

The group also experimented with skip bombing during this time and used this method for some shipping strikes, including attacks on Japanese vessels during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea March 2-4, 1943, in which repeated air attacks destroyed a large enemy convoy carrying reinforcements to New Guinea. Please note that this convoy was made up mainly of troop transports and about 8 destroyers.

After the Bismarck Sea engagement, "Ken's Men" turned their attention toward the reduction of enemy airdromes in New Guinea and New Britain and destruction of shipping in the neighboring waters. Targets hit in the succeeding weeks included Wewak, Madang, Rapopo, Arawe, and Casmata. Most of those attacks were carried out by a small number of planes because most of the Group's B-17's had been damaged in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea [and this against just destroyers. What would have happened to the B-17s if they had attacked cruisers and battleships with their AA?).

The unit's diary on 19 March noted: Reinforcements have been taking place at all enemy airdromes and General Kenny [Commanding General of the Fifth Air Force] is in Washington trying to get more planes and men over here to help us out. Our planes are badly shot up, but the boys still love 'em."

Few if any of the Group's attacks against Rabaul in 1943 were carried out against shipping because the Japanese were making greater use of the more distant harbor at Kavieng, New Ireland.

The most devastating anti-shipping blow of April and May 1943 was directed against a convoy which had been tracked to Kavieng. In a period of four days beginning on 1 April, 21 B-17's of the 43rd Group and 9 B-24's (probably from the 90th Group) harassed ships AT ANCHOR in Kavieng harbor. The B-24's dropped 500-pound bombs from 5,000 feet and observed large explosions. Some of the 43rd Group's B-17's also attacked from medium altitude, but the Fortresses skip-bombing from 75 to 250 feet caused the greatest damage. The official reports indicated that a 6,000-ton vessel was "left sinking," and two to four destroyers were damaged. That mission, which General Douglas MacArthur described as "a honey," considerably reduced the enemy's capabilities of supplying its beleaguered garrisons in New Guinea.


COMMENT:

In the above, please note that most attacks by B-17s were against merchant shipping, slow troop transports or lightly guarded convoys. Many of these attacks (and the most successful ones) were against Japanese ships AT ANCHOR IN HARBOUR.

I have never been aware in the real war of low level B-17s attacking Japanese cruisers, battleships or aircraft carriers on the open sea and living to tell the tale. . .

Even when the B-17s attacked Japanese destroyers, they took such heavy damage that most of them were out of commission because of needed repairs. Why? Because they were BIG, SLOW moving targets. . .

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Von Rom


I generally have to agree with your comments regarding the B-17.

I posted this elsewhere, but I do so again here for clarification:

The B-17s are too powerful in the game.

. . . snip of text showing how powerful B-17s were in the skip bombing role . . .

In the above, please note that most attacks by B-17s were against merchant shipping, slow troop transports or lightly guarded convoys. Many of these attacks (and the most successful ones) were against Japanese ships AT ANCHOR IN HARBOUR.

I have never been aware in the real war of low level B-17s attacking Japanese cruisers, battleships or aircraft carriers on the open sea and living to tell the tale. . .

Even when the B-17s attacked Japanese destroyers, they took such heavy damage that most of them were out of commission because of needed repairs. Why? Because they were BIG, SLOW moving targets. . .

Um your post didn't exactly support your point.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

[Huskalator]

Why weren't B-17s used to glide bomb Japanese shipping at low altitudes?

If the answer is that they would get torn up by flak, then the flak effectiveness needs to be increased against low flying level bombers. If the answer is that they couldn't hit a moveing ship, then their bomb accuracy needs to be turned down against ships at sea. If the answer is that the commanders at the time did not fully realize the B-17's effectiveness at low altitudes, then nothing needs to be changed.

Skip bombing shouldn't even enter the discussion. To my knowledge B-17s flying at 1,000 feet are NOT skip bombing in UV.

[strollen]

Originally posted by Deep Breakfast
Why weren't B-17s used to glide bomb Japanese shipping at low altitudes?

If the answer is that they would get torn up by flak, then the flak effectiveness needs to be increased against low flying level bombers. If the answer is that they couldn't hit a moveing ship, then their bomb accuracy needs to be turned down against ships at sea. If the answer is that the commanders at the time did not fully realize the B-17's effectiveness at low altitudes, then nothing needs to be changed.

Skip bombing shouldn't even enter the discussion. To my knowledge B-17s flying at 1,000 feet are NOT skip bombing in UV.

As I posted previously B17 were used by the 5th Air Force in glide bomb (3,000-5,000) attacks in the 1st phase of the Battle of the Bismark Sea, as well as other times. They also were torn up by flak, even from a lightly armed transport convey. There doesn't seem to be a huge difference in there accuracy whether attacking a transport convoy or CV task force, nor is the much of a difference in flak effectiveness from 6,000 to 1,000 feet.

[1089]

Originally posted by Deep Breakfast
Why weren't B-17s used to glide bomb Japanese shipping at low altitudes?

If the answer is that they would get torn up by flak, then the flak effectiveness needs to be increased against low flying level bombers. If the answer is that they couldn't hit a moveing ship, then their bomb accuracy needs to be turned down against ships at sea. If the answer is that the commanders at the time did not fully realize the B-17's effectiveness at low altitudes, then nothing needs to be changed.

Skip bombing shouldn't even enter the discussion. To my knowledge B-17s flying at 1,000 feet are NOT skip bombing in UV.

Allied bombers set at 100 ft. never bomb, they just strafe, and their altitude is reported as 1000 ft.

Allied bombers set at 1000 ft. have their bombing accuracy increased dramatically and their altitude is reported as 1000 ft.

2x3 staffers have stated that skip-bombing was modeled in the game.

So what is the setting for skip-bombing?

IMO 1000 ft. Manuals have been known to be wrong in the past. It could have happened here. Matrix and 2x3 remain mute.

thanks,
kp

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by dgaad


Um your post didn't exactly support your point.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Sorry dgaad, but I'm afraid that YOU missed the point I was making.

In the real war, when the B-17 was used in low level bombing, it was against relatively UNARMED shipping (such as convoys, troop transports, etc), and many of these ships were anchored in port.

Even so, even against the AA of destroyers, the B-17s took a great deal of damage.

This is far different, than to have B-17s and other large bombers successfuly attack MOVING, EVADING carriers, battleships, and cruisers on the open sea, that are all firing AA at them.

At the Battle of Midway, all the bombers that attacked the Japanese fleet failed to score a single hit. Why? Because the ships were EVADING THE ATTACK.

In the game, the bombers should be somewhat successful at attacking anchored merchant ships in port from a low altitude.

But on the open sea, there should be relatively few hits on warships. Even so, any low level attacks against warships should be met with withering and devastating AA and fighter interceptions.

In the picture below, Japanese aircraft carrier Soryu circles while under high-level bombing attack by USAAF B-17 bombers from the Midway base, shortly after 8AM, 4 June 1942. This attack produced near misses, but no hits. US Air Force Photo

[brisd]

Copied from the "low-level bombing" poll:

Originally posted by Joel Billings -

"These are the three changes that I believe have been made to date in the next patch to be released.

1) Experience gain for pilots on transport missions has been greatly reduced.
2) Repair times for level bombers have been increased, especially for heavy bombers.
3) The Norden bombsight modifier for US aircraft has been limited below 6000 feet and totally taken away below 4000 feet (it had a minimum altitude that was not being accounted for which Mike just realized that Gary had not accounted for).

In addition, Gary is going to make a change that will reduce morale for level bomber units that have a large proportion of their planes damaged and are set for low level bombing (probably under 5000 feet). Along with the changes above, this should cut down on the ability to keep bombers flying low level missions day after day (as well as their effectiveness).

As for flak, be careful what you wish for. As it is, US combat TF's in late 42 can chew up huge amounts of enemy planes. If we were to increase flak it could seriously throw things out of balance. We are very reluctant to make a change here unless all other relatively safe/simple options have been exhausted. We're trying to achieve the rifle solution instead of the shotgun. Is the perceived issue all flak, or flak against the high endurance bombers?"

Well done!

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Skip bombing occurs when level bombers are given naval attack orders and are assigned an altitude of 100 feet. There were some bugs in the skip bombing code, which have now been repaired. When the next patch comes out, it will work properly.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
_________________________________________________

Originally posted by 1089


Allied bombers set at 100 ft. never bomb, they just strafe, and their altitude is reported as 1000 ft.

Allied bombers set at 1000 ft. have their bombing accuracy increased dramatically and their altitude is reported as 1000 ft.

2x3 staffers have stated that skip-bombing was modeled in the game.

So what is the setting for skip-bombing?

IMO 1000 ft. Manuals have been known to be wrong in the past. It could have happened here. Matrix and 2x3 remain mute.

thanks,
kp

[Ross Moorhouse]

The test team we have for UV is the best I have ever worked in or with.

I think you need to understand how testing is done.

We are given a list of things to check to see if the programers/designers have got the game doing what it is supposed to do. This list comes from the designer/programer.

Testers are assigned things to check. Which they then report in.

At the same time the testers are also suggesting things that could be done a different way, or a better way. These are then taken into consideration by the designer who then asks the progarmer to make these changes. Which then have to be tested as well.

Game design is also constrained by the amount of money that can be used for development. I have heard some of the figures quoted for some FPS as being in the millions to develop those games.

Also a games development is aslo constrained by time. Most companies what games out selling so they have more income comming in to keep developing the game (also for fixing things that customers find, patches) and starting to develope new games.

So next time someone says that the testers dropped the ball maybe more people should be testers (not just with Matrix) and see whats involved as these guys do give up their free time to test, it can get boring just watching a game run waiting to see if something has been fixed or not.

I can give a 100% indorsement for my UV test team as they did a great job and continue to do this.

[1089]

Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

Skip bombing occurs when level bombers are given naval attack orders and are assigned an altitude of 100 feet. There were some bugs in the skip bombing code, which have now been repaired. When the next patch comes out, it will work properly.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
_________________________________________________

Thanks, Michael, for the response. I'm glad it will work when the patch comes out. Keep up the good work!

kp

[1089]

Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
The test team we have for UV is the best I have ever worked in or with.

I think you need to understand how testing is done.

We are given a list of things to check to see if the programers/designers have got the game doing what it is supposed to do. This list comes from the designer/programer.

Testers are assigned things to check. Which they then report in.

At the same time the testers are also suggesting things that could be done a different way, or a better way. These are then taken into consideration by the designer who then asks the progarmer to make these changes. Which then have to be tested as well.

Game design is also constrained by the amount of money that can be used for development. I have heard some of the figures quoted for some FPS as being in the millions to develop those games.

Also a games development is aslo constrained by time. Most companies what games out selling so they have more income comming in to keep developing the game (also for fixing things that customers find, patches) and starting to develope new games.

So next time someone says that the testers dropped the ball maybe more people should be testers (not just with Matrix) and see whats involved as these guys do give up their free time to test, it can get boring just watching a game run waiting to see if something has been fixed or not.

I can give a 100% indorsement for my UV test team as they did a great job and continue to do this.

I concur in the endorsement. Thanks to all who have been working hard to make this the best game ever! I like the compromise on the B-17s, as well.

kp

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Von Rom



In the real war, when the B-17 was used in low level bombing, it was against relatively UNARMED shipping (such as convoys, troop transports, etc), and many of these ships were anchored in port.

Even so, even against the AA of destroyers, the B-17s took a great deal of damage.

God, if I see another high altitude bombing picture I think I'll puke.

(for the umpteenth time) : B17s WERE used in a low level bombing role against both merchant ships and destroyers. For the limited sorties and times they were used, they were quite successful, and "proved the concept" of skip bombing; after the proof of concept they continued to be used in low level attacks but were gradually replaced by medium bombers who were even better at this type of mission due to the superior AA suppression and manuverability characteristics of medium bombers. The tally of B17s used in this role included numerous transports that were moving, as well as reported bomb hits on manuvering destroyers.

As you said, B17s took a lot of damage. This was in fact one of their strengths.

Given all of the historical evidence, there is nothing to suggest that they could not have been used as players have tended to use them in the game, and there is nothing theoretically impossible about an attack on a carrier group, nor theoretically impossible about having a reasonable chance to score a hit in this role.

No one, including myself, has maintained the position that B17s could hit moving ships from high altitude, so please spare yourself the trouble of posting more pictures like that. Seen em.

[elmo3]

Originally posted by Ross Moorhouse
The test team we have for UV is the best I have ever worked in or with.

I think you need to understand how testing is done....

Ross

I've been a tester for Gary in the past (worked some on BoB and all the way through BTR) and am currently testing for a competitor. I've been there, done that, and have the T shirt. Your team is doing a fine job with UV. It is usually a thankless job, and discouraging at times when you see people posting threads with titles like this one. However there are those who can appreciate all the behind the scenes effort that goes into making a game a success. Keep the faith, there are plenty of people playing UV who truly appreciate the effort of your team as well as the other support people at 2by3 and Matrix.

Lee "elmo3" Elmendorf

[IChristie]

Ross and all testers:

Part of my real job involves managing a software group that frequently has to produce very high reliability software against fixed and challenging deadlines. The software testers are always in a terrible position they have to:

a. understand all of the functions
b. Wait for code that is finished late and still get their job done on schedule
c. tell the overworked and overstressed developers that their code doesn't work
d. Take the heat when bugs show up after release (which they always do).

Testing consists of more than playing the game and making notes on the stuff you don't like. It's not just an excuse to get to play the game before everybody else. It's hard work, it can be boring. Above all, it takes immense dedication and attention to detail to do it right.

The UV test team did and continues to do a great job. They do it because their hearts are in it. They all deserve a round of applause.

They definitely do not deserve any more threads with titles like this one.