B17 Losses too heavy

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

A couple of questions:

From the description of the battle I understand that all your fighters were on LRCAP over Gilli Gilli?

What was their altitude set to?

Are squadron commanders very agressive?

And a couple of remarks on oversized air battles with rediculous results:

I think that with the current combat procedure (every plane gets a shot at every plane, if I'm not very mistaken) there must be a limit on planes that can fly a single mission, like so many have said before. Maybe something like 10 planes per airfield size point? So if you launch 3 missions against three different targets from a size 4 airfield, each of the missions could have 40 AC maximum.

In the game Pauk was talking about (96 B-17s flying airfield attack over Jahore), they murdered 64(!) IJA/N AC on the ground, on the following turn there were 94 Zeros flying coordinated escort mission from Jahore and Kuching against Batavia! They were escorting arround 90 Betties and Nells on the counterstrike (also coordinated from those two bases). Zeros murdered Allied CAP for 2 Zeros lost they shot down in dogfight arround 40 allied fighters (even some AVG Tomahawks). Now if that is not perfect example of air-war (if played too agressively) producing way too much results, I don't know what is [:)]. But I also think that just acknowleding that we play too agressively is not enough, the game should not allow us to do such things.

Yes all fighters were set to LRCAP some specifically over GiliGili some with commanders discretion out to a range that included Gili-Gili.

Altitude was set to max for Tony and A6M ... I knew TommyG had been flying at 32000 feet over the target for the past week and assumed he would this time as well. Max for A6M2 is 32,xyz for Tony it is a little higher.

I'd have to look at each air unit to get exact numbers on commanders but I do replace fighter commanders with the best available and even rotate them around so I have the best available if I will fight an air superiority campaign in a given area. So typically this gives several commanders in the 80s and 90s on both ratings ...

Wonder why historically in the Pacific during 1942-43 anyway, airstrikes of 100+ planes were very rare .. yet in the game they are par for the course !?

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Wonder why historically in the Pacific during 1942-43 anyway, airstrikes of 100+ planes were very rare .. yet in the game they are par for the course !?

Read this thread on B-17s in WitP

LINK -Changes to B-17s in 1.5

[AmiralLaurent]

I think the problem is that WITP is unable to deal with big battles. And that he is allowing concentration, so big battles (or at least big attacks) are the only way we can play and win.

My own impression is that every fighter of each side will have a chance to attack any unit of the other side at least once... when in reality, fighters often engage only once in battle and many aerial skirmishes finish by a draw. In fact in real life when an air battle became bigger the loss ratio was falling, because:

_ it is harder to bounce a bigger formation, as more eyes are seeking the enemy. And when the formation is bounced, the rear pilots suffer while the other evaded.

_ if there are tens of planes whirling around, chasing one and aiming carefully is not a good idea.... you will probably be shot at before firing.

WITP seems to modelize only one vs one battles. And as far as I know ammunitions are unlimited.

A way to modelize what actual air battles may be that each fighter engaging the enemy will have a chance to be retired from the battle: either he has dived away to escape, or ran out of ammo, or both pilots have engaged in a long duel no one wins and so on. I think the chance a fighter breaks after any combat (not even firing) should be something like 50%.

Another problem is that WITP is not taking in account the box defensive tactic for bombers. I'm quite sure that any fighter attacking a bomber formation is experiencing return fire from only one bomber.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


I think the problem is that WITP is unable to deal with big battles. And that he is allowing concentration, so big battles (or at least big attacks) are the only way we can play and win.

My own impression is that every fighter of each side will have a chance to attack any unit of the other side at least once... when in reality, fighters often engage only once in battle and many aerial skirmishes finish by a draw. In fact in real life when an air battle became bigger the loss ratio was falling, because:

_ it is harder to bounce a bigger formation, as more eyes are seeking the enemy. And when the formation is bounced, the rear pilots suffer while the other evaded.

_ if there are tens of planes whirling around, chasing one and aiming carefully is not a good idea.... you will probably be shot at before firing.

WITP seems to modelize only one vs one battles. And as far as I know ammunitions are unlimited.

A way to modelize what actual air battles may be that each fighter engaging the enemy will have a chance to be retired from the battle: either he has dived away to escape, or ran out of ammo, or both pilots have engaged in a long duel no one wins and so on. I think the chance a fighter breaks after any combat (not even firing) should be something like 50%.

Another problem is that WITP is not taking in account the box defensive tactic for bombers. I'm quite sure that any fighter attacking a bomber formation is experiencing return fire from only one bomber.

I think ammunition is the big culprit. From what I can see of the mechanics, no thought whatsoever was given to that absolute limitation of aerial combat. And why not? Ship ammo is tracked, torpedoes are counted, planes are only given one load of bombs to carry. Why not limit MG/cannon ammo as well? Fighters could only carry so many seconds of MG-burst capability, and then they were all done dancing.

Whatever the cause, the air model performs poorly in most situations, laughably when someone puts forth an example of the type offered today by Joe, and as you note, this always seems to revolve around a large air battle.

It's too bad, and this is probably going to be the reason why the game just slowly fades away. Speaking for myself, I have some interest to see how the system behaves later in the war with the Allies mounting large amphibious assaults, but I think I can fairly predict now how that will shake out.

[Halsey]

For B-17 missions against Zero CAP.
I never fly below 36600'. The hits are few, but casualties are nil.
Irrelevant can atest to this.[;)]

Again, this is a pilot quality thing. The incredible results come because of the CAP fighters high experience. Then throw in the manuever bonus in the first 6 months, and you will see more than wild results.

A6M's + Exp Pilots = The Zero Bonus
A6M's + Exp Pilots + Bonus Manuever = Invincible Zeroes

[timtom]

What's the maximum RL operational altitude of a fully loaded B-17 anyway?

[Oleg Mastruko]

Anyone thinking B17 losses are too high is gotta be kidding.

If there is ONE, *ONE* weapon system that's way way way overrated in WITP then it's B17, period.

O.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: TommyG

As the poor dumb b*st*rd that lost the 52 B-17s, may I point out that Cooktown is now a level 5 base with 10K over needs supplies, a US Hq unit, and excess aviation support. The B-17s are rotated out of combat whenever their morale drops below 50. Whenever 50% or more of the squadrons are below 50 morale, I stand the entire base down. All units were in high 60's/low70s in experience. Gili Gili was the target rather than a larger base because I was getting slaughtered over Buna and Lae. The B17s have not been much of a factor in this game, which is vey unusual in that I rely on them heavily and to good advantage in every other game. Also, though, it should be pointed out that I am not very good.

What were the fatigue levels?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Anyone thinking B17 losses are too high is gotta be kidding.

If there is ONE, *ONE* weapon system that's way way way overrated in WITP then it's B17, period.

O.

I'm one who thinks B17 losses are too high - and I'm not kidding !

Have you read Fortresses Against The Sun ?

You'd change your mind if you had.

Assuming you haven't upon what data are you basing your opinion ?

Per this source, B17s routinely flew missions over Rabaul and other Solomons/New Guinea bases in 1942 and usually shot down 1-3 zeros per mission losing none of their own.

Doesn't happen that way in the game - period !!!

[sadja]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Anyone thinking B17 losses are too high is gotta be kidding.

If there is ONE, *ONE* weapon system that's way way way overrated in WITP then it's B17, period.

O.

I'm one who thinks B17 losses are too high - and I'm not kidding !

Have you read Fortresses Against The Sun ?

You'd change your mind if you had.

Assuming you haven't upon what data are you basing your opinion ?

Per this source, B17s routinely flew missions over Rabaul and other Solomons/New Guinea bases in 1942 and usually shot down 1-3 zeros per mission losing none of their own.

Doesn't happen that way in the game - period !!!

Yes but they didn't reduce airfields to nothing and keep flying every day full force. They flew 6-10 sorties a day from a 48 plane group. If they flew IRL the way they fly in this game then all the pilots would have the 50 missions in 2 months and go home.

Some times you get the dice roll sometimes you don't.

Sadja

[TommyG]

fatigue levels were single digits to mid 20s. IMHO not a factor.

[bradfordkay]

I don't think that B17s are too powerful in WITP. Just look at what similar numbers of Betties and Nells do to Clark AAB on Dec 8. I do agree that the B17 replacement rate is too high, allowing far too many to participate in raid after raid (I am sure that there are other a/c which have the same problem, we just haven't concentrated on figuring out the others). Of course, I also think that it is too easy to get plentiful supplies to the front line bases. Both of these situations aggravate the problem.

[Mike Scholl]

Point to be pondered. The game's designers warped the map so that only the B-17's and 24's could reach many targets. They also put an excessive number of them in the Allied OB and replacement pools. Now they have made them FAR to easy to shoot down (an attempt to rectify the earlier screw-up?) Why are we yelling at each other? Why hasn't one of the patches fixed the excessive numbers available problem? Instead of warping the casualties to try and cover for it?

There SHOULD be far fewer B-17's in the Pacific (B-24's are another matter---but that's later). And they should also be EXTREMELY difficult targets for the Japanese to shoot down, and NASTY to tangle with at ANY altitude (no, they didn't always fly at 30,000 feet. They flew according to the mission profile and the targets being attacked). Now they also should be pretty ineffective against ships at sea (better against slow merchant ships than warships, but still not good.), and not much good at ground attack. But they did perform adequately against non-moving targets. If the designers had done it right to begin with, we wouldn't all be griping at each other.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Anyone thinking B17 losses are too high is gotta be kidding.

If there is ONE, *ONE* weapon system that's way way way overrated in WITP then it's B17, period.

O.

I'm one who thinks B17 losses are too high - and I'm not kidding !

Have you read Fortresses Against The Sun ?

You'd change your mind if you had.

Assuming you haven't upon what data are you basing your opinion ?

Per this source, B17s routinely flew missions over Rabaul and other Solomons/New Guinea bases in 1942 and usually shot down 1-3 zeros per mission losing none of their own.

Doesn't happen that way in the game - period !!!

Actually they claimed 1-3 per mission. Real losses are probably much lower (as for any bomber gunner claim of any airforce in WWII)

In WITP, B-17 at the same time are too numerous, far too efficient, fly far too much and are too easier to shot down in A2A. The end result being that they suffered unhistorical losses, but not enough to halt them playing an unhistorical role of daily airfield blaster.

[2Stepper]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
They flew according to the mission profile and the targets being attacked). Now they also should be pretty ineffective against ships at sea (better against slow merchant ships than warships, but still not good.), and not much good at ground attack. But they did perform adequately against non-moving targets.

One partial point here that I have to agree with. I have a friend who I'm in a PBEM game with at the moment and he's developed a penchant for the perverbial "skip bomb" technique against my ships. He put two 500lb bombs from B17s of all things down on the Yamato and that was AFTER a torpedo did its work as well. Nothing more frustrating to lose one of your heaviest hitters for 6 months with 33 SYS damage. [X(] The growl I made was that it was B17s that did it. How unlucky does one need to be?!? [X(] The picture below shows you how tough it would be to do this damage. Level bombing from higher altitudes trying to drop a "stick" of bombs on a IJN carrier. NOT an easy task.

At any rate, I still maintain the game is what we make of it. A lot of the results I've encountered in this particular game have largely been right on target. IJA planes getting swatted out of the sky due to poor experience (mid-late 42), while a crack group of 300 IJN pilots (exp 75-90) comes in and drops 45-50 allied army fighters in about 3 days. Not to mention the Kates and Vals punishing PM.

I've tried to be objective in terms of one, being a history buff, but also a lover of the game, and you know? I just can't grumble about it. And for my money, there's two bugs I'm waiting to get fixed. After that? I'm set, so long as nothing else gets accidentally "killed off".

[8D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Point to be pondered. The game's designers warped the map so that only the B-17's and 24's could reach many targets. They also put an excessive number of them in the Allied OB and replacement pools. Now they have made them FAR to easy to shoot down (an attempt to rectify the earlier screw-up?) Why are we yelling at each other? Why hasn't one of the patches fixed the excessive numbers available problem? Instead of warping the casualties to try and cover for it?

It isn't a case of having the map warped, rather some of the Allied planes were downgraded in terms of their actual operational ranges. Two good examples would be the Ventura and Hudson.

Why wasn't another tack taken? Read the answers from the company. There's little enough consistency and virtually no response on the worst of the problems. When the company does respond it's to deny, for instance, that there is (or was--for all I knw they tweaked it in the patch but refused to own up to it) a problem with the ASW routines to begin with.

I just discovered three B-17s on Tarawa this turn with Mogami. They apparently flew there on orders from the AI in order to join up with the rest of their unit at Noumea. That's all I can figure. Now Frag would tell you that's the game system working as designed, but if so, why was it designed in this fashion? Tarawa is the last place I'd send B-17s on a ferry flight as it's currently under seige by the Japanese. And the only way around this nonsense is to very closely manage all of your assets every turn. As far as it goes, that makes sense, but in the case of this bomber fragment, there were four left at Pearl at the end of my last turn, one of which was being repaired. I didn't want to create three fragments, and so left the 3/1 fragment sitting at Pearl, believing the next turn it would repair to 4/0 and I could send the fragment more safely on its eventual way to Noumea. Less luck this time with the stupid AI. But again, I ask this: if the AI isn't capable of making intelligent decisions, then why have it control that aspect of the game in the first place? What sort of design decision is that? A poor design decision, that's what.

If you want a laugh, guess what the name of the leader was of that remaining fragment in Pearl this last turn.

     ..tap..tap..tap..

     Time's up!

His name was . . . 1LT Grigsby L.

I sent Mr. Grigsby to Canton, and from there he'll rejoin his parent unit in Noumea tomorrow. Meanwhile, I have an unrepaired B-17 on Tarawa that might well be destroyed. Not good.

There SHOULD be far fewer B-17's in the Pacific (B-24's are another matter---but that's later). And they should also be EXTREMELY difficult targets for the Japanese to shoot down, and NASTY to tangle with at ANY altitude (no, they didn't always fly at 30,000 feet. They flew according to the mission profile and the targets being attacked). Now they also should be pretty ineffective against ships at sea (better against slow merchant ships than warships, but still not good.), and not much good at ground attack. But they did perform adequately against non-moving targets. If the designers had done it right to begin with, we wouldn't all be griping at each other.

B-17s ought to be rotten against ships at sea, though they could have been used in the skip-bombing role--were used in it at Rabaul when the Army was testing this technique.

And yes, the designers didn't do it right but wrong. Very wrong in so many cases. That's the rub. And the pity is these complaints were voiced on the UV boards when some good change might still have been affected. But no, that wasn't to be. Which is why some people on this board today "whine" so much, I guess.

[tsimmonds]

For B-17 missions against Zero CAP.
I never fly below 36600'. The hits are few, but casualties are nil.
Irrelevant can atest to this.

True dat. Oscars were intercepting them, until the groups all got shot up. The A6M3s did ok at first, but then you bumped up another few hundred feet (figured you were already at ceiling, nice surprise). I expect the 17s are getting trained up pretty good by now. Still, I have to keep CAP up though, no telling when you might decide to come in at 15000. That's OK, Tonys and Tojos soon.....[;)]

A6M's + Exp Pilots = The Zero Bonus
A6M's + Exp Pilots + Bonus Manuever = Invincible Zeroes

Tell me again, how many hundreds of those invincible Zeroes have I lost....?[;)][:'(]

And I'd much prefer to have B17s that performed in such a way that the allied guys didn't feel they were being cheated (very tough to shoot down), and to have them available in such numbers as were actually used in the PTO (very small).

[rtrapasso]

And yes, the designers didn't do it right but wrong. Very wrong in so many cases. That's the rub. And the pity is these complaints were voiced on the UV boards when some good change might still have been affected. But no, that wasn't to be. Which is why some people on this board today "whine" so much, I guess.

Sorry - but i have to mention this.

I had stopped posting on this board for a couple of years because i found UV totally unplayable. Literally - the game would crash every few minutes (on a relatively capable machine at the time).

To say it's our fault that we didn't mention the problems in UV that now show up in WITP is sort of like blaming the victim of a crash in a 747 for not mentioning the the flight attendants weren't serving drinks in the cabin in a timely fashion.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Anyone thinking B17 losses are too high is gotta be kidding.

If there is ONE, *ONE* weapon system that's way way way overrated in WITP then it's B17, period.

O.

I'm one who thinks B17 losses are too high - and I'm not kidding !

Have you read Fortresses Against The Sun ?

You'd change your mind if you had.

Assuming you haven't upon what data are you basing your opinion ?

Per this source, B17s routinely flew missions over Rabaul and other Solomons/New Guinea bases in 1942 and usually shot down 1-3 zeros per mission losing none of their own.

Doesn't happen that way in the game - period !!!

Does the book say they flew in hundereds, from some god forgotten, malaria ridden sh*thole, day after day, leaving nothing but smoke and dirt and sunken ships in Rabaul harbor after their 100-aircraft raids? I guess not, but that's how they act in the game, and how most Allied players use them.

You know why? I'll tell you why.

*Because of incessant Allied fanboy whines that their B17s be made easier to supply, maintain and service than your garden variety lawnmover.*

So you get some, lose some, gotta live with that (on both sides).

O.

[Nikademus]

The B-17's semi-frequently flew against Rabaul, initially at night but during the day as well per F. against the Sun. What is being left out is that even during the day attacks they were often timed to go in during optimal defensive conditions (dusk or dawn, higher altitudes) The 17's certainly did not just stroll in, with no thought given to the enemy's defenses. Kenney wasn't stupid.

The 17's frequently reported shooting down Zeros every time they encountered them.....i lost track of the number of times a single Fort would claim up to 4 Zeros all by itself. Rarely did they actually get a Zero in fact.

The results were often reported as highly effective but they do not mesh with what was reported in Bergerud. The Aug 7 raid had to be the most exagerated report in history. (massive numbers of Rabaul planes destroyed on the ground.....when in fact there were none present)