Difficulty against the computer

[BigB]

Uh-oh--is it the dreaded Four-Engine Skip-Bombing Argument thread clawing its way out of the ground? Just when you thought you'd driven the stake through its heart...

Thats just stupid

[SpitfireIX]

ORIGINAL: BigB

Uh-oh--is it the dreaded Four-Engine Skip-Bombing Argument thread clawing its way out of the ground? Just when you thought you'd driven the stake through its heart...

Thats just stupid

Hardly. There have been major arguments about this issue in the past (especially in the UV forum). What it boils down to is that some people claim that low-level attacks by heavy bombers are ahistorical and unrealistic; others claim that the Allies should be able to make them at will. I tend to taka a middle-of-the-road view; I think such attacks should be allowed, but they should be infrequent (as they were historically).

This gets into a problem with historical simulation games in general; because it is impossible to model every factor that would have affected commanders' decisions IRL, some tactics will work better than they did historically, and those tactics will tend to be employed more often than they otherwise would be. There's no perfect solution; if this fact bothers someone, the best answer is to find opponents who have similar views, and who can be trusted to play fairly historically.

[Mr.Frag]

others claim that the Allies should be able to make them at will. I tend to taka a middle-of-the-road view; I think such attacks should be allowed, but they should be infrequent (as they were historically).

The missing component in the discussion was that the bombs required special fusing. We don't track ordinance so putting limits on this can not be done throught existing game mechanics.

Without the fuse change, you can not skip bomb (the bomb would explode on impact with the water and take the plane with it). With there is obviously a pilot skill issue (flying low to the water in a lumbering monster is inherently dangerous), the real issue is the technology employed.

[Grotius]

So has anyone developed a workable house rule for skip bombing? Or is it just "anything goes"?

[mark24]

If "hard" vs. AI gives them more LCU, does that mean I can expect to net more XP when I capture an island by virtue of eliminating more squads?

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: mark24

If "hard" vs. AI gives them more LCU, does that mean I can expect to net more XP when I capture an island by virtue of eliminating more squads?

NOTHING gives more units. Don't know where that wives tale came from.

[mark24]

& how much more LCU can I expect them to get?

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: BigB

Uh-oh--is it the dreaded Four-Engine Skip-Bombing Argument thread clawing its way out of the ground? Just when you thought you'd driven the stake through its heart...

Thats just stupid

Are you ever going to contribute something worthwhile or are you just here to be a stupid troll?[8|]

[cyberwop36]

ORIGINAL: BraveHome

I find the discussion of 6,000 versus 5,000 interesting, because the manual (section 7.2.2.10, Altitude Selection) states

"Level bombers attacking at below 5,000 feet will have their accuracy and effectiveness
reduced."


The same section also states

"Level bomber groups that have more damaged aircraft than ready aircraft near the end of the Resolution Phase and are ordered to attack at an altitude of below 6,000 feet will
have the possibility of having a 30 point Morale loss."

So I have always used 6,000 feet as 'minimum' for my LBs to be safe, though the game engine seems to target 5,000 for nondamaged LB minimum altitude/maximum effectiveness.

attack altitude of my B-17's and Hudsons to 5000 and see if they would be more effective, but so far the results has been no

I always set all my naval attack medium bombers to 1000 ft. They are very, very effective. When their moral gets low I just rotate or rest them. The only exception are the ones who's primary weapons are torpedos. I set them at 4000 ft. to limit flak exposure and limit there range so they will only carry torpedos.

A good squadron will average about 50% hits at 1000 ft. And it seems a bunch of hits and lots of success really helps moral. I'll trade level bombers for ships any day. [:D]

[mark24]

Mr Frag,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: mark24

If "hard" vs. AI gives them more LCU, does that mean I can expect to net more XP when I capture an island by virtue of eliminating more squads?

NOTHING gives more units. Don't know where that wives tale came from.

Poorly worded question on my part. Allow me to rephrase, IF more squads are available to LCU's in the Hard setting, does that mean more VP when I finally take the island (wherever) in question? I understand that the AI gets no combat bonuses unless I select Very Hard.

Thanks, Mark

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: mark24

Poorly worded question on my part. Allow me to rephrase, IF more squads are available to LCU's in the Hard setting, does that mean more VP when I finally take the island (wherever) in question? I understand that the AI gets no combat bonuses unless I select Very Hard.

Thanks, Mark

As far as I remember what Frag has said in past:

"AI peeks on hard, cheats on very hard"

So, on HARD, AI can peek into your orders, kinda getting better intelligence of a sort. And on VERY HARD, combat formulas and supply are tweaked on AI's behalf. But I don't think there is increased amount of replacements, just more supply.

Cheers,

M.S.

[castor troy]

I´m always playing on hard and AI attacks me with masses of bombers from bases which are lying under siege for weeks and there are no supplies left but the bombers are bombing me, bombing me, bombing me.... And also the LCUs located in these bases don´t seem to suffer penalties for being without supply and they aren´t starving away. So I don´t really know how it goes under hard.

[Mr.Frag]

But I don't think there is increased amount of replacements, just more supply.

Fuel & Supplies not critical to Computer on Very Hard.

Nowhere is anything ever added on any level.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662
Anyone remember the movie the Dam Busters where the Brit Lancasters skip bombed the Ruhr dams? I am searching for it on DVD now.

Haven't seen the film (didn't even know it exists) but read a book or two about it when I was young which helped directing my interests towards WWII history. Gallant but futile operation. Two dams damaged but repaired within five months. A few bridges and power facilities destroyed, as well as flooding of villages along the rivers - some 3000 people killed, many of them inmates of Forced Labor Camps located below the dams (locals managed to rescue some). Couple of Lancs lost to AAA and two more rammed power poles during the low-level approach. A glimpse on a map would have revealed that one of the two dams retained a river which does not even flow to the Ruhr area, but in the opposite direction - d'oh! All in all a costly failure, perhaps only good for morale. But surely a great story for the movies. Guess it is the usual 'heroic Allies dealing a severe blow to They-are-all-Nazis-Germany' [:'(] kind of movie, but is it worth buying nonetheless?

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Fuel & Supplies not critical to Computer on Very Hard.

Nowhere is anything ever added on any level.

So I should be able to blockade and starve enemy garrisons if I play on Hard, but not necessarily if I play on Very Hard ??

Cheers,

M.S.

[mark24]

Mr Frag,

Fuel & Supplies not critical to Computer on Very Hard.

Should read this as isolating a base in order to cut its supply is pointless, as all enemy units wil be completely unaffected anyway?

Is this true of "hard" as well? Since the enemy get "logistical" advantages there, too?

Mark

[Mr.Frag]

The rules that govern how they react are downplayed but they are still cut off. It hurts, just not as much as it would hurt you.

[mark24]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The rules that govern how they react are downplayed but they are still cut off. It hurts, just not as much as it would hurt you.

OK, thanks. But how is this effected, do enemy troops just require less supply?

Mark

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36


I always set all my naval attack medium bombers to 1000 ft. They are very, very effective. When their moral gets low I just rotate or rest them. The only exception are the ones who's primary weapons are torpedos. I set them at 4000 ft. to limit flak exposure and limit there range so they will only carry torpedos.

A good squadron will average about 50% hits at 1000 ft. And it seems a bunch of hits and lots of success really helps moral. I'll trade level bombers for ships any day. [:D]

What type AA are you facing when you do this? Are you mainly attacking smaller TFs with little escort, or major TFs with plentiful escort? Versus AI or PBEM?

Thanks, just some background info to help interpret your results [;)]

[ckk]

sorry