Current thinking on HR for night bombing

[fcooke]

Evil I (Intrepid) took a night torp in the tail in 44. I don't recall a CVE getting torpedoed by an night time air attack but that does not mean it did not happen.

[mmoaorrke]

I appreciate and thank you all for the comments and ideas for night bombing house rules (don't stop, I'm sure there are other possibilities people are using). This will give alpha and I a starting point for our negotiations since the first allied player, and I in accepting to pick it up in Sep 42, already agreed there would be a house rule on night bombing (we're currently in Apr 43).

Since I seem to also have started a debate (or restarted it), I'd like to add my 2 cents. When we're disucssing what happened in the PTO during WW2 we are using history. However, when comparing to the game, history changes on turn 1 in lots of ways. Sure you can compare what happened in real life to the game. But part of war is adapting to your enemy (extra guns on B-25s, skip-bombing, night bombing with B-29s due to weather and winds over Japan, kamikazes, etc.). In the game, unlike history Japan CAN have better fighters earlier, better pilots throughout, more resources (or all vice versa) depending on the "enemy". The game allows different history and players can/should adapt to different situations. To me, that's the beauty of the game.

Btw, when I found this forum a few years ago, I remember telling my wife, "these are my people". Someone else who loves history and especially WW2 history.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Evil I (Intrepid) took a night torp in the tail in 44.

Of course, the Chicago was sunk by a well-coordinated nighttime torpedo attack on 30 January 1943.

Intrepid's torpedo plane damage was received in February 1944.

This note from Enterprise's Wiki: On 17 February (1944) : Again Enterprise made aviation history, when she launched the first night radar bombing attack from a U.S. carrier. The twelve torpedo bombers in this strike achieved excellent results, accounting for nearly one-third of the 200,000 tons of shipping destroyed by aircraft.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mmoaorrke
Since I seem to also have started a debate (or restarted it), I'd like to add my 2 cents. When we're disucssing what happened in the PTO during WW2 we are using history. However, when comparing to the game, history changes on turn 1 in lots of ways. Sure you can compare what happened in real life to the game. But part of war is adapting to your enemy (extra guns on B-25s, skip-bombing, night bombing with B-29s due to weather and winds over Japan, kamikazes, etc.). In the game, unlike history Japan CAN have better fighters earlier, better pilots throughout, more resources (or all vice versa) depending on the "enemy". The game allows different history and players can/should adapt to different situations. To me, that's the beauty of the game.

Btw, when I found this forum a few years ago, I remember telling my wife, "these are my people". Someone else who loves history and especially WW2 history.

Of course I agree with the sentiment of the first paragraph. But in the game, these things should be decided before the first turn is played. Otherwise, the Japanese player cannot react to the artificially effective nighttime facility bombing in the game in a meaningful fashion. Once both players are clear what level of fidelity to ascribe to the game mechanics (and the limitations), then the Japanese player can make the necessary tough choices about aircraft production and research for night fighters.

I also agree with the sentiment of the second paragraph. Welcome aboard. [8D]

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But in the game, these things should be decided before the first turn is played. Otherwise, the Japanese player cannot react to the artificially effective nighttime facility bombing in the game in a meaningful fashion. Once both players are clear what level of fidelity to ascribe to the game mechanics (and the limitations), then the Japanese player can make the necessary tough choices about aircraft production and research for night fighters.

Well you still need the units which can take (or "upgrade" to) night fighters, I believe there are not many in 1943...night fighters are a doubtful "upgrade" as they are of course worse than "normal" fighters. Also one needs 3 seperate (day) fighter units for each base which you want to defend. Cause one needs to cover of course severall altitude bands.. But perhaps I miss something in regards to night combat. Even if I would have researched a "good" night fighter which I would get for example in August 43 I would proabably have perhaps 2 units which could take these planes (?).


I have also not much interest in using night bombing myself (as IJ player) reason being a) more micromanaging b) lack of units - many bomber units are needed for search/asw.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But in the game, these things should be decided before the first turn is played. Otherwise, the Japanese player cannot react to the artificially effective nighttime facility bombing in the game in a meaningful fashion. Once both players are clear what level of fidelity to ascribe to the game mechanics (and the limitations), then the Japanese player can make the necessary tough choices about aircraft production and research for night fighters.

Well you still need the units which can take (or "upgrade" to) night fighters, I believe there are not many in 1943...night fighters are a doubtful "upgrade" as they are of course worse than "normal" fighters. Also one needs 3 seperate (day) fighter units for each base which you want to defend. Cause one needs to cover of course severall altitude bands.. But perhaps I miss something in regards to night combat. Even if I would have researched a "good" night fighter which I would get for example in August 43 I would proabably have perhaps 2 units which could take these planes (?).


I have also not much interest in using night bombing myself (as IJ player) reason being a) more micromanaging b) lack of units - many bomber units are needed for search/asw.

Is your game PDU off or PDU on?

[rustysi]

Is your game PDU off or PDU on?

Does it matter WRT night fighters? I know not everything is 'open', even with PDU On.

[RangerJoe]

Later in the war my understanding is that Japanese bombers do not fare well where there are Allied fighters. Something about the Ronson/Ziipo effect where they light up at the first attempt.

[CaptBeefheart]

I think that's the first night-time aerial torpedo success I've seen in this game. Well done. There should definitely not be an HR against that in case you were thinking about it.

So far, I've played against the computer for all but about 5% of my turns with this game. The IJ computer player likes to do night raids. I've found that even putting 1/3 of a day fighter squadron on night CAP noticeably mitigates the effect of night raids. Anyway, something to think about.

Also, HRs should be balanced. If the IJ can ahistorically waltz all over China or take Calcutta -- which is fine since this is a game, not a historical simulation -- perhaps there should be something added to the Allies' ledger to "make the game more enjoyable for both players."

At the end of the day it's your game. Good luck figuring it out.

Cheers,
CB

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Is your game PDU off or PDU on?

PDU on. Clicked through ca. 20 units and found 2 (!) that can upgrade to Nick NF in 4/44. But no problem the Japanese are supermen and the 2 nightfighters they have now (2 x Irving) will do the job alone. But these 2 will withdraw in Sep 43 or so. So thanks for the tipp with the floatplanes as CAP I try that and can resize some and I have 70 or so Pete´s in the pool. However non are produced anymore, does it make sense to put a factory to produce Petes again as "nightfighters" ?

Btw: Here are proposed rules are they ok ? I am not sure about the radar thing - cause if you check real nightbombers only some have radar (e.g Wellingtons some versions), but other like Lancasters, most Mosquito and B29s do not have radar - but these are night bombing capable planes. So the "real" night bombers like Lancaster,B29s and the Wellingtons without radar would be hampered by this radar rule or not ? If at all these plane types should be used at night (cause they did so in reality) and not ones which were (mainly) used at day (B17,B24,B25 for example)

Also not sure with the moonlight thing, night is night, is it not?


Also why should the Japanese have no rules - they did not even ask for night bombing as they do not need / want it in 1943... [&:]

This is my 1st campaign PBM so these questions might sound dumb to veterans... I play(ed) however 3 games vs. AI and there (is) was no problem with night bombing.


Allied rules for night bombing:

1. No limitation on night bombing for HI/LI/manpower/oil/refinery/or factories. Will take me awhile to get close anyway.

2. Ports and airfield raids will be limited to 3 squadrons per raid per location per night with 50% or more moonlight. This begins 1 Jul 1943 and applies to planes with no radar.

3. Radar equipped planes can night bomb at all times.

4. 10,000 ft or higher for port/nav raids for 4E...same as daylight rule

5. Night naval attacks for other than 4Es with 90% or more moonlight.

Japanese rules for night bombing:

None

[Alpha77]

I know Wiki is often not the best source but here is their article about night bombers (it names only 3 types, Wellingtons, Whitley and B29s later.). But seems I was wrong above and Wellington was not meant (at least early) as a night bomber:

Interwar period and World War II
As aircraft capabilities grew, so did their defensive firepower. By the mid-1930s, opinions were changing and the idea of daylight raids of aircraft providing their own self-defense came to the fore. In practice these aircraft proved entirely vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft and were rapidly returned to the night bombing role. However, these aircraft had not been designed for night navigation, and were generally lacking any effectiveness in these missions:

I don't think we realized at the time that our equipment wasn't really up to it. They'd forgotten to design or produce any navigation equipment, so the Wellington bomber, which was intended to be a day bomber, had to operate at night because it was so vulnerable during the day. It had virtually the same equipment that the Tiger Moth had, with one exception—the Wellington had a loop aerial. Here we were flying 500 or 600 miles over enemy territory, trying to locate a target in total blackout, often with cloud below us and a lot of industrial haze. It's not surprising that our bombers were 5, 10 miles away. There was no bomber stream. We were largely on our own, perhaps 10 or 14 aircraft at intervals.

—John Gee, Bomber Command pilot[2]
The USAAF was the only force to press ahead with daylight strategic bombing raids during World War II. This proved as disastrous as the earlier Royal Air Force and Luftwaffe attempts, and had to be called off in late 1943. The arrival of the P-51 Mustang fighter in the "bomber escort" role allowed these missions to start again in 1944, and the fighter was so successful that the Luftwaffe fighter force was largely wiped out by the end of spring. Attrition of the Luftwaffe was so great that the RAF was also able to take to the daylight skies later that year.

The USAAF also applied the same concept with the bombing raids against Japan in June 1944-early 1945 with daylight precision bombing against Japanese industrial facilities using Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers. However, the results weren't successful because of the frequent jetstream blowing the high explosives off target, navigation problems, anti-aircraft fire, and searchlights, resulting in high losses among the B-29 crewmen. As a result, in February 1945, the USAAF switched to low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities, most of them took place at night. The most devastating air raid in the war was the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9–10, 1945, which destroyed 16 square miles, killed 100,000 Japanese, and made a million people homeless.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_bomber

[pontiouspilot]

In my PBEM as Japan my opponent and I just banned night 4 eng bombing of all but cities. We both agreed that the stunning damage was frightfully unrealistic. I personally will extend that to 2 eng raids also. We were both painfully aware of the futility of such raids in real life.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

In my PBEM as Japan my opponent and I just banned night 4 eng bombing of all but cities. We both agreed that the stunning damage was frightfully unrealistic. I personally will extend that to 2 eng raids also. We were both painfully aware of the futility of such raids in real life.

Like so many things, it depends ....
A couple of years ago there was a discussion of Catalina operations at night and someone posted a link to the operations of the RL "Black Cats". One remarkable story was how they wreaked havoc on an IJ airfield in the Solomons at night. Allied air superiority shut down IJ airfields during the day so the Japanese conducted repairs at night using lights from vehicle and some lighting units attached to generators. The Cats came in low and bombed the construction troops, their vehicles and then the light-providing vehicles and generators before the Japanese could turn them off.

If Cats with a few small bombs and Para-frags could do that, it is not inconceivable for HBs in good moonlight to make good attacks. Just have lead aircraft drop flares over the target.

[HansBolter]

Why is it that so many players are A-OK with the overpowered capabilities of the Japanese side, but constantly want to reign in the overpowered capabilities of the Allied side?

If you hamstring the Allies by preventing them from shutting down air fields by night bombing, why are you not also restricting the use of Netties beyond fighter escort range, which is typically used to shut down naval movement without air cover?

Why are all of the overpowered Japanese capabilities OK?

Why does only the Allied side need to be reigned in?

Why are so many hypocrites playing this game?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Why is it that so many players are A-OK with the overpowered capabilities of the Japanese side, but constantly want to reign in the overpowered capabilities of the Allied side?

If you hamstring the Allies by preventing them from shutting down air fields by night bombing, why are you not also restricting the use of Netties beyond fighter escort range, which is typically used to shut down naval movement without air cover?

Why are all of the overpowered Japanese capabilities OK?

Why does only the Allied side need to be reigned in?

Why are so many hypocrites playing this game?

Easy Hans, that last remark was uncalled for. If they want to negotiate away some capabilities to keep their opponent playing longer, that's their choice to make. The game experience is in the player's experience and they do not have to have the same passion for historic or "as programmed" play as you do. Pointing out the impact of such HRs is fine, dissing the players choices is not.

[RangerJoe]

Instead of building Petes, build more Jakes. It has a longer range, makes for an excellent scout FP, and it gets radar later. So where is Gary Burgoff until then?

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I know Wiki is often not the best source but here is their article about night bombers (it names only 3 types, Wellingtons, Whitley and B29s later.). But seems I was wrong above and Wellington was not meant (at least early) as a night bomber:

Interwar period and World War II
As aircraft capabilities grew, so did their defensive firepower. By the mid-1930s, opinions were changing and the idea of daylight raids of aircraft providing their own self-defense came to the fore. In practice these aircraft proved entirely vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft and were rapidly returned to the night bombing role. However, these aircraft had not been designed for night navigation, and were generally lacking any effectiveness in these missions:

I don't think we realized at the time that our equipment wasn't really up to it. They'd forgotten to design or produce any navigation equipment, so the Wellington bomber, which was intended to be a day bomber, had to operate at night because it was so vulnerable during the day. It had virtually the same equipment that the Tiger Moth had, with one exception—the Wellington had a loop aerial. Here we were flying 500 or 600 miles over enemy territory, trying to locate a target in total blackout, often with cloud below us and a lot of industrial haze. It's not surprising that our bombers were 5, 10 miles away. There was no bomber stream. We were largely on our own, perhaps 10 or 14 aircraft at intervals.

—John Gee, Bomber Command pilot[2]
The USAAF was the only force to press ahead with daylight strategic bombing raids during World War II. This proved as disastrous as the earlier Royal Air Force and Luftwaffe attempts, and had to be called off in late 1943. The arrival of the P-51 Mustang fighter in the "bomber escort" role allowed these missions to start again in 1944, and the fighter was so successful that the Luftwaffe fighter force was largely wiped out by the end of spring. Attrition of the Luftwaffe was so great that the RAF was also able to take to the daylight skies later that year.

The USAAF also applied the same concept with the bombing raids against Japan in June 1944-early 1945 with daylight precision bombing against Japanese industrial facilities using Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers. However, the results weren't successful because of the frequent jetstream blowing the high explosives off target, navigation problems, anti-aircraft fire, and searchlights, resulting in high losses among the B-29 crewmen. As a result, in February 1945, the USAAF switched to low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities, most of them took place at night. The most devastating air raid in the war was the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9–10, 1945, which destroyed 16 square miles, killed 100,000 Japanese, and made a million people homeless.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_bomber

No aircraft used operationally in WWII was "designed" for night bombing; some were adapted for it with additional equipment, while most were simply assigned to night missions. Even the Halifax and Lancaster were intended for daylight operations, but their light defensive armament would have made such missions over Germany suicidal in 1943-44.

There are a number of problems with that Wikipedia article, probably due to a lack of good sources cited.

The 8th AF did not halt daylight precision raids after the Oct 14, 1943 Schweinfurt mission; it simply restricted raids in Germany to the Ruhr region and Bremen, which were within range of P-38s and P-47s. When the 354th FG and its P-51s became operational in Dec 1943, the 8th AF again ranged further into Germany, although raids were few through the end of February because of unusually bad weather.

The 20th and 21st Bomber Commands never halted daylight precision raids over Japan; instead, they interspersed them with night incendiary raids which were much more effective. Daylight precision raids had to continue because the supply of incendiary bombs could not keep up with the pace of their use. From early 1945 until the end of the war, daylight raids were typically carried out from 20,000 to 25,000 feet (just as in Europe), rather than 27-30,000 feet. This improved accuracy and since most of the Japanese fighters available for Home defense didn't perform all that well above 20,000, losses to the unescorted B-29s were acceptable (compared to Europe).

[Barb]

Hi,
Carefully with the radar rule - because usually the British GR (General Reconnaissance) planes used for Naval Search have them (ASV-type) while regular night bombers do not. Unfortunately there is no real Air-to-Ground radar (although later ASV Marks were adapted to that - but even the radar bombing usually required some specific landmarks like distinct coastline features, big rivers or lakes).

I would go for using real night bombers for the night strategic bombing (Cities, industry, etc):
Wellington Ic
Wellington B.X
Liberator II
Liberator B.III
Liberator B.VI
Lancaster B1.FE (No Spcl version, the Grand Slam was used during the day!)
Lincoln B.1
Mosquito B.35
B-29B Superfortress

Plus some planes equipped with radar (check the exact Nation/versions) for Night search/Night Naval attack/Night Port Attack:
PBY Catalina
PB2Y Coronado
PB4Y Liberator/Privateer
PBJ Mitchell
PBM Mariner
PV-1 Ventura
PV-2 Harpoon
TBF/TBM Avenger
Hudson (some marks)
Swordfish/Albacore
Wellington GR.VIII/XIII
Liberator GR.III/VI
Sunderland

As for the Japan I would probably go for similar principle - most of the heavy/medium bombers could be used for strategic targets, while some planes equipped with radar could be used effectively on Night Naval/Port attack. (e.g. Netties etc could be used even before the radar is active, but their successes would be minimal.

BTW - you should be allowed to bomb disregarding the Moon conditions - the results are usually related to that (0% Moonlight with severe storm will probably result in 0 hits anyway). IRL RAF Bombers used Moonless nights for operations over Germany - as the moonlight increased visibility and interception probabilities thus resulting in higher losses to the bomber crews.

[Yaab]

Imagine if the code simply punished every pilot attempting a night bombing attack with a 30-40 points malus to pilot's GndSkill during the bomb run.

[jdsrae]

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Imagine if the code
simply punished every pilot

attempting a night bombing attack
with a 30-40 points

malus to pilot's GndSkill
during the bomb run.

Might need to tweak the tune a bit for it to work