Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem with 100' in an aircraft with a 100' wingspan, well, you do the math. [:D] All aircraft drop slightly in a turn (except for VERY high powered , high performance aircraft doing climbing turns).

Actually, unless that plane has an extremely lopsided wingspan, a 90 degree bank would still leave 50 feet to play with at 100 feet altitude. [;)] And yes, the plane WILL descend in the initial part of a turn, which is why pilots are trained to raise the nose slightly and add power before intitiating the turn, which somewhat compensates for the dip. Still not the most comfortable manuever even at 200 feet at night...

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

Not funny at all. In WITP they were wrong.[:D] 

ORIGINAL: pad152

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

AE means Allied Edition. Japan don't have 4E bombers. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: pad152

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

AE means Allied Edition. Japan don't have 4E bombers. [:D]

Actually , it means Admirals edition. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't get the latest JFB humor. [:D] Japan also doesn't get the A-bomb or the proximity fuse .

"If we see ridiculously frequent instances of this sort of thing, I'll become concerned and take action."

Just as in the surface combat routines, PT boats, Zero's, A to A, etc. etc. that people are discussing, this is exactly the correct answer (and is generally what I'm reading from the Devs on issues).  Early days yet, and you SHOULD get occasional outliers...if you don't, and everything proceeded strictly via rote formulas, why bother?  If you get "ridiculously frequent instances" of sorta ahistorical (but not totally impossible) actions/results in the same game, then there's almost undoubtedly a problem.  Or if all the "questionable results" invariably break for the same side...it only sucks if it's YOUR battleship that blows up/sinks at anchor, in its home port.  If it's the OTHER guy's, it's high fives and victory dance time.

ORIGINAL: pad152

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

I remember a few, but most recognized it was historical. What was far more annoying was the vast hordes of 4E bombers the Allies would throw at you.

Skip bombing was a non-issue in Witp simply because the B17's were far more useful in shutting down level 8 Japanese airfields in one strike.

I have not been able to reproduce this.

I set unit with 4 B-17Es as desperate measure, to 100ft Naval Attack. Result: no hits, 3 damaged B-17Es. They were attacking IJN TF unloading in Port Moresby, so very vulnerable TF, despite having CL in it (cannot be sure because of FOW).

And how many people have actually tested this? I did...and guess what? My B17 bombers didnt hit anything at 100 feet strikes, I used the same turn to test this, over and over, against the same target. Hitting a docked ship in a port is another matter. Hitting moving ships at sea? I must not be playing the same game, because once again, not only did I fail to hit anything but the fighter cap shot down a number of the bombers set to attack at 100 feet.

Guess thats whats great about AE huh...stuff can and does happen at times, although it isnt the norm.

I am glad somebody ran tests for this. It does not seem something that is that hard to test for.

I agree though, there were a lot weird happenings that came from WWII, so I guess we should see some of them in AE as well[:D] .

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

Nopes. Ju-87 Stuka http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/italy_cenni.htm


WITP had always the problem of bomb hit chance being by bomb instead of by plane. It seems the problem remains.

You should be careful about running tests like that. I don't know if they have changed how the random number seeding works, but just reloading a save then running the turn again will likely get you the exact same results because the seed is the same.

I believe the correct way to do tests is to create a scenario, then start it fresh for each test, thus getting you a new seed.

ORIGINAL: Puhis
I really don't follow you. Ships can turn much steeper than 4E bomber. It's not my logic, it is a fact.

Five 4E bombers and 10 bomb hits it's just riduculous.

I assume you mean "tightly"..., the only thing ships do steeply is heel over and sink. And you are ignoring the fact that the aircraft is traveling 10 times faster than the ship. As to rediculous, at least 10 hits by five bombers is possible given the bombload, Try explaining the PH results that have the Japs getting 60 "hits" with the 40 "specially modified" torpedoes they carried?

You should really check the results achieved by Sardaukar and Sheytan when they actually tried to test this result instead of complaining about it.

I prepared to be wrong as I don't know if anything has changed in the seeding routine, but if they just loaded the turn, ran it, loaded the turn, ran it, etc, they should get the same results due to having the same seed.

To test you need to create a test scenario, and start it afresh for each round of testing.

Can a coder confirm this or shed light on it?

ORIGINAL: pad152

B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.

One would have hoped this was fixed. [8|]

Some B17 pilots actually skip bombed ships. Not to common though. And certainly not against well defended ships.

just because something happens seldom and is not the normal type of procedure does not mean it isn't possible at all. I see no problem in trying to set your 4 engine bombers to 100 feet. You just have to live with higher Flak and CAP losses. and they probably fly less.

I remember that a general houserule was to not use 4 engine bombers for attacks below 10000 or 15000 feet if set on naval attack. After reading "fire in the sky" by Bergerud, this needs to be thought over. There were several examples in 1943 of B-17 actually going in at 6000 feet or lower, because at 15000 feet you just couldn't hit anything.

The main problem is that we all work with historical hindsight. We know that high level bombing doesn't work in 1941 or later. In 1941, they didn't know that. They had to develop the tactics we know. What we tend to use in 1941 (skip bombing, low level attacks by 4 engine bombers etc.) had irl to be developed during 1941-1943.
Question is, houserules or accept the fact that while the allies can use some tactics early, the japanese can reorganize his production early, making a better job than historically.

i would go for the latter. If it is allowed, you may use it. Just might cost you more.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Puhis
I really don't follow you. Ships can turn much steeper than 4E bomber. It's not my logic, it is a fact.

Five 4E bombers and 10 bomb hits it's just riduculous.

I assume you mean "tightly"..., the only thing ships do steeply is heel over and sink. And you are ignoring the fact that the aircraft is traveling 10 times faster than the ship. As to rediculous, at least 10 hits by five bombers is possible given the bombload, Try explaining the PH results that have the Japs getting 60 "hits" with the 40 "specially modified" torpedoes they carried?

You should really check the results achieved by Sardaukar and Sheytan when they actually tried to test this result instead of complaining about it.

Well, Sardaukar and Sheytan did their tests after I wrote my post, so I really couldn't check them before "complaining"... [:)]

I still think that 10 bomb hits is ridiculous. Big bombers flight straight when they try to hit something. If fast moving ship turns tight, bombers will miss. And escorting DDs and CAs would shot them down before they even reach the CV. I don't think those massive bombers can surprise strong surface force, because they have to fly much higher than 100 ft when approaching the TF so that they can even spot the TF.

That is how I see it, but of course I might be totally wrong. [:)]

About PH, if japanese really get more hits than they have torpedoes, that is ridiculous too. I haven't tried that yet. And it's not subject of this thread.

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Well, Sardaukar and Sheytan did their tests after I wrote my post, so I really couldn't check them before "complaining"... [:)]

What I was actually suggesting was that you might well have run some "tests" yourself before leaping in to "hammer" the designers. Just because a result can happen once in 100 tries does not mean the design is automatically biased and broken. History is repleat with 1 in 100 results..., to be accurate a simulation must also include such possibilities.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

What I was actually suggesting was that you might well have run some "tests" yourself before leaping in to "hammer" the designers. Just because a result can happen once in 100 tries does not mean the design is automatically biased and broken. History is repleat with 1 in 100 results..., to be accurate a simulation must also include such possibilities.

I haven't be able to play the game for a four days now... So I just hanging around this forum because of the addiction... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Puhis
About PH, if japanese really get more hits than they have torpedoes, that is ridiculous too. I haven't tried that yet. And it's not subject of this thread.

They get more hits than they had converted gun shells because of game engine limitations to simulate such things is the explanation I read a week or so ago.

So I think there is a reason behind this other than making up crazy stuff for the hell of it.