Falling in Love with Sally

[treespider]

Just remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander....so when you equip Sally with 20x50 kg Bombs are you going to equip the B-17 with 8000/500 = 16x500 lb bombs for short range missions or alternatively 32x250lb bombs for Short range... or for that matter 9x500lb bombs or 18x250 lb bombs for long range?

[el cid again]

Yep- I have comprehensively reworked Allied bombers

I found that the loads in stock were uniformly vastly understated in weight terms to begin with
so the number of even big bombs went up

It is perfectly true that game code does not understand "maximum bomb load" - preferring only normal
and extended range loads - and this impacts larger Allied bombers considerably
The Japanese tend to not have a maximum bomb load in the Allied sense - although sometimes they
do - and so I used the standard "normal load is the load used at normal range" - however that turned out
to be.

I will post some examples of Allied loads - I already posted above the B-25G and B-29A with ICB.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander....so when you equip Sally with 20x50 kg Bombs are you going to equip the B-17 with 8000/500 = 16x500 lb bombs for short range missions or alternatively 32x250lb bombs for Short range... or for that matter 9x500lb bombs or 18x250 lb bombs for long range?

True enough, but I was only interested in seeing the effect before making a final committment to anything. I figure run the tests for up to a game year (letting the Ai play itself) and see if making those changes causes too much of a change in the way the game plays...as we know, if it significantly effects the IJA/IJN, then the allied effect will be even more significant (due to the potential bomb loads of the large allied bombers).

[el cid again]

B-17 C/D GP (GP bombs) = 12 x 500 pound bombs
B-17E GP = 10 x 500 pound bombs (the official standard load went from 6000 to 5000 pounds)
B-17F GP = 12 x 500 pound bombs (the official standard load went back to 6000 pounds)
B-17G GP = 12 x 500 pound bombs
LB-30 AS (ASW mission armed, it normally was a patrol bomber or recon bomber) 2 pairs of Mk 6 Air Dropped DC
plus 4 x 250 pound bombs - plus a 300 gallon 6000 pound Bomb Bay Tank in the forward bomb bay - extending range
LB-30 GP = 10 x 500 pound bombs
B-24D AP (SAP bombs) = 12 x 500 pound bombs
B-24D GP = 12 x 500 pound bombs
B-24D1 GP = 12 x 500 pound bombs
B-24J GP = 6 x 1000 pound bombs
B-25B GP = 6 x 500 pound bombs
B-25C GP = 6 x 500 pound bombs
B-25D1 GP = 4 x 500 pound bomb
B-25G ICB = 4 x 400 pound ICB Clusters PLUS 4 x 100 pound ICB Clusters
B-25H GP = 4 x 500 pound bombs
B-25J1 GP = 4 x 500 pound bombs
B-25J11 AP = 4 x 500 pound SAP bombs
B-26 TB = 22 inch Mk 13 Torpedo
B-26B GP = 8 x 250 pound bombs
B-29 GP = 20 x 500 pound bombs (i.e. 10,000 pound standard load)
B-29A GP = 20 x 500 pound bombs
B-29B ICB = 16 x 500 pound bombs PLUS 16 x 400 pound ICB Clusters PLUS 8 x 100 pound ICB Clusters
(that is, a standard load of 15,200 pounds - the plane is stripped of almost all defensive armament)
B-32 GP = 40 x 500 pound bombs
B-17C/D RC (recon mission fitted) STILL has bombs = 12 x 500 pound bombs
B-37 Lexington AS (ASW Load) = three pairs of Mk 6 Air Dropped DC (= ASW bombs)
PB2Y-3 GP = 8 x 1000 pound bombs
PB2Y-3 AS = 3 x 500 pound bombs PLUS three pairs of Mk 17 Air AS Bombs
PB2Y-5 AS = 2 pairs of Mk 47 Air AS Bombs PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 4 x 500 pound bombs
PB4Y-1 AS (e.g. Navy B-24) = 4 x 250 pound bombs PLUS 4 pairs of Mk 17 Air AS Bombs
PB4Y-2 AS Privateer = 2 pairs of Mk 47 Air AS Bombs PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 4 x 250 kg bombs
PB4Y-2 ASM (Air to Surface Missile carrier) = 2 Bat ASMs
PBJ-1C AS (e.g. Navy B-25) = 4 x 250 pound bombs PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 42 Air AS Bombs
PBJ-1D AS (e.g. Navy B-25) = 4 x 250 pound bombs PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 41 Air AS Bombs
PBJ-1H AS (e.g. Navy B-25) = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 47 AS Bombs
PBJ-1J AS = (e.g. Navy B-25) 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 47 AS Bombs
PBM-3D GP = 6 x 500 pound bombs
PBM-5E AS = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 2 pairs of Mk 47 Air AS Bombs PLUS 2 x 500 pound bombs
PV-1 AS = 3 pairs of Mk 17 Air AS Bombs
PV-2 AS = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 3 pairs of Mk 47 Air AS bombs
PV-2 GP = 8 x 500 pound bombs
PV-3 AS = 2 pairs of Mk 6 Air AS DC (= Air ASW bombs)
PBN-1 AS = 2 pairs of Mk 17 Air AS Bombs

[el cid again]

RAF Blenheim I GP = 5 x 100 pound bombs
RAF Blenheim IF NF (night fighter) = 4 x 40 pound bombs
RAF Blenheim IVF GP = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RAF Blenheim V GP = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RAF Hudson IIIa = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RAF Lancaster B.ISP (special) = 3 x 12,000 pound bombs
RAF Lancaster B.1 FE (Far East) = 4 x 4000 pound bombs
RAF Lincoln B.1 GP = 3 x 4000 pound bombs PLUS 1 x 2000 pound bomb
RAF Liberator B.II = 10 X 500 pound bombs
RAF Liberator B.III = 12 x 500 pound bombs
RAF Liberator B.IV = 12 x 500 pound bombs
RAF Liberator GR.II = 12 x 500 pound bombs
RAF Liberator GR.IV = 12 x 500 pound bombs
RAF Sunderland II = 2 pairs of Mk XI Air Dropped DC PLUS 4 250 pound bombs
RAF Sunderland III = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 2 x 250 pound bombs
RAF Sunderland GR.V = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 4 x 250 pound bombs
RAF Wellington I GP = 12 x 250 pound bombs
RAF Wellington VIII TB = 2 x 18 inch Mk VII Torpedoes
RAF Wellington X GP = 3 x 1000 pound bombs
RAF Wellington XII AS = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 2 pairs of Mk VII Air Dropped DC
KNIL 139WH-3 (Dutch B-10) = 10 x 100 kg bombs
MLD Do-24K (Dutch flying boats) = 4 x 100 kg bombs PLUS 2 x Mk VIII Air AS DC
RAAF Anson AS = 1 pair of Mk VIII Air AS DC
RAAF Liberator IV GP = 12 x 500 pound bombs
RAAF Beaufort V GP = 4 x 500 pound bombs
RAAF Beaufort VIII GP = 4 x 500 pound bombs
RAAF Boston (A-20C) = 4 x 500 pound bombs
RAAF Boston (A-20G) = 4 x 500 pound bombs
QANTAS Empire Flying Boat (S.23) = 20 x 40 pound bombs
RAAF Hudson I GP = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RAAF Hudson III GP = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RAAF PV-1 = 6 x 500 pound bombs
RAAF Sunderland C.II = 2 pairs of Mk 24 ASW Torpedoes PLUS 2 pairs of Mk XI Air Dropped DC PLUS 2 x 500 pound bombs
RCAF Bolingbroke IV = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RCAF Liberator V AS = 6 x 500 pound bombs plus 4 pairs of Mk XI Air Dropped DC PLUS 8 x 3 inch no 1 rockets
RCAF Stranraer AS = 2 pairs of Mk VIII Air Dropped DC
RCAF Ventura V AS = 4 pairs of Mk XI Air Dropped DC
RNZAF Hudson III = 4 x 250 pound bombs
RNZAF Ventura AS = 4 pairs of Mk XI Air Dropped DC
RNZAF Singapore AS = 2 x 250 pound bombs PLUS 2 pairs of Mk VIII Air Dropped DC
SOVIET A-20B = 10 x 100 kg bombs
SOVIET A-20H = 10 x 50 kg bombs
SOVIET B-25J = 6 x 250 kg bombs
SOVIET IL-4 DB-3M = 10 x 100 kg bombs
SOVIET IL-4 DB-3T = 1 x 45-36-AN Torpedo
SOVIET IL-4 DB-4F = 6 x 250 kg bombs PLUS 6 x 100 kg bombs
SOVIET Li-2VV (DC-3 BOMBER!!) = 4 x 250 kg bombs
SOVIET Tu-2S GP = 4 x 250 kg bombs
A-20B TB = 1 x 22 inch Mk 13 Torpedo
A-20C GP = 4 x 500 pound bombs
A-20G GP = 4 x 500 pound bombs
A-29A GP = 4 x 250 pound bombs
A-29B GP = 8 x 500 pound bombs !!!
B-10 AS = 2 pairs of Mk 6 Air Dropped DC PLUS 4 x 100 pound bombs
B-18 GP = 8 x 500 pound bombs
B-18 AS = 4 pairs of Mk 6 Air Dropped DC
B-23 GP = 8 x 500 pound bombs

[el cid again]

CAF A-29 Hudson = 4 x 250 pound bombs
CAF B-24M = 12 x 500 pound bombs
CAF B-25D = 4 x 500 pound bombs
CAF IL-4 (DB-3) = 10 x 100 kg bombs
RAF Mosquito B.35 = 1 x 4000 pound bomb
RAF Mosquito FB.VI 4 x 250 pound bombs (2 each internal and external) PLUS 8 x 3 inch No 1 rockets

with the exception of the peculiar Mosquito - which technically is a bomber - I didn't list figher bombers -
but some of them have 2,000 pound normal range bomb loads -
the Allies get a wide range of bomb load options

[Dili]

Witp has code problems with big quantity of bombs. I thought this was a well known problem . You could see a ship hit by 15 bombs of a 20 total dropped. The worse is that with 20 bombs you can be sure that probably one will hit always.

That is why the bomb packs are a solution to the big increased in hit rate of planes with many bombs.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One might replace many small bombs with one device - but if one were "honest" about it - one would calculate statistically what the effect of the many small ones would be and give that value to the one device.

But what that value is depends on whether you are attacking a point or area target. For an area target the entire stick is likely to be effective, with the damage based on the anti-soft capability of the entire stick rather than a single bomb. For a point target, such as a ship, it's likely only one bomb of the stick will hit, so damage should be modeled on that basis and the penetration should certainly be based on the single weapon rather than being cumulative. You might want to allow for the possibility of more than one bomb hitting, but that's a complex modeling issue in its own right. And then there are bombing attacks against hard area targets, like a tank regiment, which split the difference and allow the possibility of multiple, but still limited, hits while requiring us to consider penetration, not just anti-soft values. So that's at least three different values for your 'honest' answer.

The problem is that without knowing the details of the bombing algorithms we don't know how much of this is built into the code, and how much is built into the data. I'd certainly push most of these factors into the algorithm and just leave the raw data based around an individual weapon as I believe that gives both greatest accuracy and greatest flexibility, but I don't know how the original WITP coders did it, which means we change things at the risk of finding the programme responding in very unexpected ways.

Otherwise - it isn't modeling the same weapon - but creating a new - and ficitonal - one.

All our weapons are 'fictional' they attempt to take a real world example with many complex issues and convert them into a computer model with only a handful of simplified ones. Modelling 20 bombs as a single weapon is no more 'fictional' than modelling them as 20 single ones.

[m10bob]

Para-frags are just around the corner??

[Dili]

Will you release them under 300ft ?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Witp has code problems with big quantity of bombs. I thought this was a well known problem . You could see a ship hit by 15 bombs of a 20 total dropped. The worse is that with 20 bombs you can be sure that probably one will hit always.

That is why the bomb packs are a solution to the big increased in hit rate of planes with many bombs.

On the other hand, increasing the bombload doesn't seem to have made much difference on hits/damage when attacking land based targets. Jury is still out though, but it may be just as well to leave things as they are in stock.

[el cid again]

It is making a great deal of difference in RHS - see the AAR reports by Big Red.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Witp has code problems with big quantity of bombs. I thought this was a well known problem . You could see a ship hit by 15 bombs of a 20 total dropped. The worse is that with 20 bombs you can be sure that probably one will hit always.

That is why the bomb packs are a solution to the big increased in hit rate of planes with many bombs.

This is not the case in our testing. Because RHS has refilled "the empty sea" of stock (most of the absent ships are added back in - or relocated from "safe" San Francisco to waters in danger) - and because in particular it has added lots of riverine craft - early days have massive numbers of air strikes vs naval units. It is quite common for a squadron strike to score no hits at all. And it is very common for only a small number of units to be hit if there are several targets together in the same formation. It appears to me that the code system is to evaluate every run separately. When I send very large numbers of bombers, Sally's in particular, the time to resolve the action extends out - and you get reports for each target enaged (hit or not, with NOT being much more common). If this is correct, the subroutine may be working perfectly - as it only evaluates small numbers. Lets face it - if a B-29 can carry 20 x 500 pound bombs - its normal load - a Sally ought to be able to carry 20 x 50 kg bombs - and both should be treated properly. I do have a report - only two days old - of a game with a different mod - run to completion in 1946 - in which small numbers of large bombs fail at strategic bombing - and substantially fail even at killing airfields (of the high values that exist by 1946). Vs such targets, larger numbers of bombs should matter.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One might replace many small bombs with one device - but if one were "honest" about it - one would calculate statistically what the effect of the many small ones would be and give that value to the one device.

But what that value is depends on whether you are attacking a point or area target. For an area target the entire stick is likely to be effective, with the damage based on the anti-soft capability of the entire stick rather than a single bomb. For a point target, such as a ship, it's likely only one bomb of the stick will hit, so damage should be modeled on that basis and the penetration should certainly be based on the single weapon rather than being cumulative. You might want to allow for the possibility of more than one bomb hitting, but that's a complex modeling issue in its own right. And then there are bombing attacks against hard area targets, like a tank regiment, which split the difference and allow the possibility of multiple, but still limited, hits while requiring us to consider penetration, not just anti-soft values. So that's at least three different values for your 'honest' answer.

The problem is that without knowing the details of the bombing algorithms we don't know how much of this is built into the code, and how much is built into the data. I'd certainly push most of these factors into the algorithm and just leave the raw data based around an individual weapon as I believe that gives both greatest accuracy and greatest flexibility, but I don't know how the original WITP coders did it, which means we change things at the risk of finding the programme responding in very unexpected ways.

Otherwise - it isn't modeling the same weapon - but creating a new - and ficitonal - one.

All our weapons are 'fictional' they attempt to take a real world example with many complex issues and convert them into a computer model with only a handful of simplified ones. Modelling 20 bombs as a single weapon is no more 'fictional' than modelling them as 20 single ones.

I am in harmony with your views here. I am slightly more optimistic than you are about the way the algorithms work. It appears they have well modeled what happens when a ship is attacked, for example. I do not find the number of hits excessive. Here - this thread is about Sally after all - and Sally is the principle Japanese Army bomber at the start of the war - I find it agonizingly able to miss - never mind it carries (usually) 20 (otherwise 15) bombs.
On the typical run it misses ships altogether. I find the effects on land equally gratifying. What matters when you hit an airfield is how many times you hit it. It does not matter very much what you hit - and lots of what you hit won't actually be vital. The numbers of hits on specific things - maintenance hits - fuel storage hits - planes hit - runway hits - all seem very realistic. The algorithms are impressive in showing how your hit rate declines if you increase altitude too. I know a programmer - and gamer - who says this is the best air model in widespread use there is. I am not sure he is right about that? But it is remarkable considering how simple it is.

In any case, a former chief programmer at Matrix once told me "get the data right - and let us get the algorithms right." So that is what I do. I can't write the algorithms. But I can understand them (by testing) - and I can apply consistant standards to data - and I do.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Para-frags are just around the corner??

Maybe. That is the kind of thing I can model. Have not thought about it before. When were they introduced?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Will you release them under 300ft ?

Not me. I honor the house rule coined in WITP days - low level bombing was a later innovation, and is improper to use before someone thought of it. Code seems to have built in very high accuracy for low level delivery - so we limit it to after it was practice.

The other problem is AAA. Below 3200 feet various mg come into play. My devices are defined with altitude - and exist in vast numbers (that is, realistic numbers, not like stock - which in particular grossly understates US MG issuing). I don't like plane damage to them. So even after low level is allowed - I likely won't do it.

[Dili]

Well parafrags were released at very low level otherwise the winds thkes them away that is why i asked. How to force a player to do that?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well parafrags were released at very low level otherwise the winds thkes them away that is why i asked. How to force a player to do that?

I suppose one could create a "special" variant of aircraft specifically to carry the "parafrag" device...and only give the aircraft a max altitude of 1000' or 2000'.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well parafrags were released at very low level otherwise the winds thkes them away that is why i asked. How to force a player to do that?

I suppose one could create a "special" variant of aircraft specifically to carry the "parafrag" device...and only give the aircraft a max altitude of 1000' or 2000'.

Hmm, could treat the parafrag as a 'cannon' and make it only available on aircraft checked 'attack bomber'. You'd have more or less unlimited ammo, but with a properly rated accuracy, it might balance out. Just an idea. [:)]

[Dili]

A variant is probably the better idea needs of course to be able to return to former one.