Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality.

Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high?

Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look.

This isn't going to be easy...

The way I look at things like this have to do with the limitation of the code as it is written. Its generally done as a 'one size fits all' so to speak. So bombing is bombing, no such thing a bombing an airfield is different from bombing a city. Is different from bombing a TF, etc.

I think its common knowledge here that the more bombs an A/C carries the better a chance of a hit. Now that works fine when you're bombing a city, but not so much when bombing a TF. IOW, if I 'walk' a sting of bombs through a city what one misses the next may hit something. When it comes to a TF, if I walk bombs across it a miss is basically a miss, no matter how many bombs are in the sting. At best you'll get one hit per plane. Hence the restriction of the reduced bomb load when bombing from 1k'. If not too many hits.

Now when it comes to HB's they carry a good number of bombs, and therefore have a greater chance of multiple hits. By restricting their altitude these number of hits will be diminished, which will reflect their chance of hits to a more accurate level.

Now I'm not disparaging the game or how the code is written. Things have to be as they are for many reasons, and one of them is economics. If the game is written to accommodate each instance it would take forever code (if that is even possible) and cost a fortune. Most of us don't have pockets like the Pentagon to dive into.[:D]

Of course all this is JMHO as I perceive things. Just as it is for your outlook.

[Ian R]

I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton:

Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....&

Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... e&#3844312

It seems the developers already built in a reduction.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton:

Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....&

Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... 2Caltitude?

It seems the developers already built in a reduction.

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

[Moltrey]

So... have all the community gnashing of grognard teeth over heavy bomber house rules been a wasted exercise then? (not that THAT ever happens... [8|]) If the Devs "have already built in a reduction", then is it acceptable enough for most players?
Somehow my intuition tells me it won't be, strictly due to most players "HB low altitude OP" beliefs were formed based on game execution direct/2nd hand (replay) observation. Which of course "validates" said beliefs, right?

I am all for hidden data and random factors in WITP:AE, but it does tend to bring out Alfred to correct or amend statements repeatedly (likely the source of his legendary snappish behavior).

You could make a case that this sort of arguing is what all us Grogs are best at- chasing our collective tails on details that aren't truly important in the grand scheme of things.

[rustysi]

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: rustysi



I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate.

As I understand it, low level bombing was exceptionally dangerous to the planes pursuing it as the explosion shockwave could knock down planes and this is not modeled in game...

So it was a high skill, high reward endeavor.

Massed 4E low altitude bombing really can devastate the KB, especially when used in conjunction with a carrier clash.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate.

As I understand it, low level bombing was exceptionally dangerous to the planes pursuing it as the explosion shockwave could knock down planes and this is not modeled in game...

So it was a high skill, high reward endeavor.

Massed 4E low altitude bombing really can devastate the KB, especially when used in conjunction with a carrier clash.

Thus the use of delayed fuze.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: rustysi



I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate.

[8|]

It is simply this...

Due to the code making the number of bombs dropped a factor in the ability to hit a target, HB's tend to get more hits on maneuvering TF's at sea than they might get historically. This can make Japan's desperate situation even more so.

Doesn't mean that HB's didn't hit targets at sea, they did. Just seems that at lower altitudes they seem to punch above their weight.

Again, play the way you wish. As I've said before, 1000 players, 1000 ways to play the game.

[rustysi]

Thus the use of delayed fuze.

Yeah, I've seen films where the splash of the bomb itself causing the plane to crash.

[Lowpe]

No doubt timed fuzes help, but it still was a high skill operation:

Here is an A20 hitting a Japanese merchant...at Wewak in 1944.





Btw, as far as I know, there is no JFB HR that prevents twin engine bombers from pursuing this tactic. Most of the HR I see are limited to 4E HB, and even then a lot of the time it is ok for USN to do skip bombing.

I have played HR games and no HR games. Whatever the two players decide is ok by me...just have fun.[:)]

[rustysi]

Btw, as far as I know, there is no JFB HR that prevents twin engine bombers from pursuing this tactic

No is looking to restrict everything, the 'real problem' seems to be with the 4E's, because of the number of bombs they carry.

[Yaab]

Is the amount of bombs halved at 100-1000 feet? It seems the Dutch 139Wh bomber only carries ONE bomb instead of the default THREE bombs.

[Ian R]

Well, 3/2 = 1.5 round down is one right?

No doubt the JFBs have a different view.

[Yaab]

Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.

[Encircled]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.

Well, in the game, you have a simple choice

Fly at low level with one bomb, and maybe hit something, or fly higher to get three bombs, and watch them all miss, almost all the time [;)]

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Well, 3/2 = 1.5 round down is one right?

No doubt the JFBs have a different view.

Um, not sure what you're referring to here... If it is that bomb load is cut in half at 1k' and below, I have no different view.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.

The code halves the bombload of not-attack bombers bombing ships at low level. It looks like it rounds fractions down.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Um, not sure what you're referring to here...

I am referring to IJ players demanding a house rule that there should be no level bombing of ships at all from aircraft below 10k ft, they don't think the built in penalty is sufficient.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton:

Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....&

Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... 2Caltitude?

It seems the developers already built in a reduction.

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

Nope - "Low" only kicks in at 1000. At 2000 it uses standard skill.