Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: resconq

Will 250 still be the magic number whereby if a base has 250 or more aviation support squads, you can theoretically base an unlimited number of aircraft there?  That always seemed gamey to me.

Doesn't make much sense, either. Air operations models are like econometric models. The outputs of your bases are sorties, which reflect a lot of factors: facilities, fuel, ammo and airframe availability, parts availability, ground crew and maintenance crew availability and fatigue, morale, leadership, aircrew availability and fatigue, and weather. Probably a multiplicative model (sorties generated is proportional to the nth root of the product of n factors) is as good as any and better than most. The only outside considerations would be overtime worked (whether you're surging or not) and weather (giving the aircrew a break and catching up on the backlog). If you double your sorties on a given day, you need to put in two extra days of work to get back to a good base state. If you triple your sorties on a given day, you need to work five extra days to recover. If you can sustain seven days of work per seven days, you can either generate Nx7 sorties spread uniformly, Nx6 sorties, doubling one of the days, Nx5 sorties, doubling two of the days or tripling one day, or Nx4 sorties, doubling three of the days. Well-run bases always had a maintenance backlog, simply because that allowed efficient use of the resources available. YMMV.

I think a part of what Feinder is getting at, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, the game never reveals which altitude a sweep or a torpedo attack comes in at. It's forever a secret (other than the standard torpedo attack alt. itself, which doesn't matter for CAP in WITP because the CAP hits the approach altitude), so you have to always guess, and in reality, after the fact, it would not be a secret, and you should be able to have past knowldedge of your enemy's pattern.  You do for airbase/ground attacks, why not sweep and torpedo attacks?

Even for airbase and ground attacks I think the information is only presented sometimes.

Elf, I'm also curious whether you're changing anything about the 250-aviation-support "magic number".

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Even for airbase and ground attacks I think the information is only presented sometimes.

In games vs the AI, it is always presented. I truly wish it was in PBEM as well. It's not like the pilots have no idea as to what altitude they are flying at during combat.

I think a part of what Feinder is getting at, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, the game never reveals which altitude a sweep or a torpedo attack comes in at. It's forever a secret (other than the standard torpedo attack alt. itself, which doesn't matter for CAP in WITP because the CAP hits the approach altitude), so you have to always guess, and in reality, after the fact, it would not be a secret, and you should be able to have past knowldedge of your enemy's pattern. You do for airbase/ground attacks, why not sweep and torpedo attacks?

Precisely. Torp and dive-bombing attacks.

Saying a torp bomber comes in at 200' all the time is pointless. I -know- it drops at 200' (and DBs at 2000'). I want to know what alt I need to be setting my CAP at.

-F-

In post 19 to this thread 12 pilot experience ratings are identified.
 
When one selects 'get pilot' on the air unit screen does one get a suitably 'qualified' pilot for the type of unit or just a random pilot from the pool???
 
It really would NOT be much fun to get a pilot for a fighter unit to find he's primarily trained in ASW or Transport [:(] and doesn't know what a gunsight is [X(]

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

In post 19 to this thread 12 pilot experience ratings are identified.

When one selects 'get pilot' on the air unit screen does one get a suitably 'qualified' pilot for the type of unit or just a random pilot from the pool???

It really would NOT be much fun to get a pilot for a fighter unit to find he's primarily trained in ASW or Transport [:(] and doesn't know what a gunsight is [X(]

Hey, us ASW guys know how to use gunsights too! It's just that sometimes we're aren't sure which side to look through![:D]

Chez

I understand that barrage balloons, torpedo net defences and mine tenders are now in AE. Seeing as AE is attempting to more closely model historical capabilities, are we now going to see the elimination of non tactical (1E) torpedo plane attacks in ports/harbours? Not one historical example of this could I find in WW2 but it is a daily occurence in the game.

Thanks.

Looking and sounding mmmmmmmmaaaarvelous gents.[&o]

By the way...I'm talking harbours with docks, slips, cranes, nooks, crannies, shallow depth, narrow channels, boom and net defences etc...not Sealark Channel off Guadalcanal. Two different things entirely.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Seeing as AE is attempting to more closely model historical capabilities, are we now going to see the elimination of non tactical (1E) torpedo plane attacks in ports/harbours? Not one historical example of this could I find in WW2 but it is a daily occurence in the game.

Well, you may at least see the elimination of torpedo planes set to port attack because you'll see more AA units and guns in the game (not in the initial PH attack, of course).

Not one historical example of this could I find in WW2 but it is a daily occurence in the game.

In recognition of most conspicuous bravery. This officer was the pilot of a Beaufort aircraft of Coastal Command which was detailed to attack an enemy battle cruiser in Brest Harbour at first light on the morning of 6th April 1941. The aircraft did not return but it is known that a torpedo attack was carried out with the utmost daring.
The battle cruiser was secured alongside the wall on the north shore of the harbour, protected by a stone mole bending around it from the west. On rising ground behind the ship stood protective batteries of guns. Other batteries were clustered thickly round the two arms of land which encircle the outer harbour. In this outer harbour near the mole were moored three heavily-armed anti-aircraft ships, guarding the battle cruiser. Even if an aircraft succeeded in penetrating these formidable defences, it would be almost impossible, after delivering a low-level attack, to avoid crashing into the rising ground beyond.

This was well known to Flying Officer Campbell who, despising the heavy odds, went cheerfully and resolutely to the task. He ran the gauntlet of the defences. Coming in at almost sea level, he passed the anti-aircraft ships at less than mast-height in the very mouths of their guns and skimming over the mole launched a torpedo at point-blank range.

The battle cruiser was severely damaged below the water-line and was obliged to return to the dock whence she had come only the day before. By pressing home his attack at close quarters in the face of withering fire on a course fraught with extreme peril, Flying Officer Campbell displayed valour of the highest order.

isn´t a 1E aircraft though... [;)]

I think what Ron is really objecting to is the relatively common multiengine torpedo bomber attacks in harbor (spit it out Ron - what you really mean are attacks by Bettys and Nells on shipping in harbor) which occur in the game of which the above cited is an example (though not involving Bettys or Nells). I hate them too but my biggest objection is not so much that they occur but that they score a percentage of hits that is ten or more times the rate at which they scored hits historically; that is, with the one and only one exception of the sinking of the PoW and Repulse. That attack was not against ships in harbor but in it the IJN flyers scored 20-30% hits with their torpedos. In common with a number of other RL events that singular performance appears to be taken as the standard by which the in-game weapons systems are judged. (Certainly one can not expect those same bombers to score fewer hits against ships tied up to a pier than they did against hi-speed warships manuevering at sea even though the ship's ability to manuever or not might well be the least of the problems faced by torpedo bombers attacking a harbor as the afore cited example indicates.) If the rate with which the Bettys and Nells score hits was brought in line with their historical average and if the availability of torpedos was a bit more in line with historical availability the problem would probably go away (aren't torpedos less available in AE?). But then the problem might be that PoW and Repulse can blithely sail into the South China Sea and wreak havoc on the IJN on turn 2 which would probably be a little too depressing for IJ Players.

The air units that attacked PoW and Repulse had evidently undergone intensive training in attacking ships with torpedos. From the tone of the interview with the former operations officer (I think) of one of those Daitai this training was not generic in any sense. Perhaps the specialization of aircraft/pilots for different mission profiles will correct the overall problem of Bettys/Nells undue capabilities if not all Betty/Nell Daitai are initially given the torpedo attack specialty.


(Certainly PH and Taranto and quite a few attacks by TF38/58 involved torpedo attacks in harbors by single engine torpedo bombers. Of note though is that the attacks on Port Darwin and the harbors in Ceylon by both Bettys and/or the torpedo bombers of the KB did not involve torpedo attacks.)

So we're up to three examples - Taranto, Brest, and Pearl Harbor...

Maybe this has been brought up as a "solution" tothe torp-prolific planes, but why not just create a bomber version and torp version of the same plane (obvioulsy, you're limited by slots). 

A plane that truely was a torpedo bomber by default, like Kate and Swordfish, would be unchanged of course. 

But you could have a torp version of the Nell and a bomb version (still classed as level bomber).  You just assign the squadrons to use whichever version. 

You could limit the number of torp squadrons and that would relect the limited the number of squadrson actually trained in torpedo attacks.  The extended range of the torp bombers could carry the AP bombs (given their mission is to attack ships). 

And for the "bomber" squadrons, you could change the load-out to carry GP bombs, thus making them more effective at bombing AFs (which as I recall is a probem because normally the 2e Jap bombers are dropping AP bombs on AFs).

Do-able?

-F-

I thought they already have different kinds of pilot training being tracked in AE? If torpedo attacks is one of the kinds, we should be go to go (along with limiting torpedoes via logistics).

So we're up to three examples - Taranto, Brest, and Pearl Harbor...

As far single engine bombers attacking ships in bases with torpedos there are additional examples in the raids by TF 38/58 on Truk, the Japanese Home Islands. I think torpedos were used in a carrier raid on Rabaul in late 1943 as well. Examples of multiengine a/c torpedo attacks on ships in harbor are much harder to find. Lots of ships in Singapore Roadstead in late 41/early 42 yet I don't think there was even one raid on the shipping there that featured torpedo attacks.

So far Brest is the only example mentioned that involves multi-engined torpedo bombers.

I am of the opinion that all anti-shipping attacks are too successful in the game - that something needs to be done to reduce the number of hits made by bombers of both sides.

Maybe so, but I was also thinking about the other changes they are making. Pilot skill being tougher to achieve (has a lot to do with getting hits), reduced readiness rate for aircraft + higher ops losses = fewer attack sorties. It might be interesting to see how the play testing/beta testing goes.

I am of the opinion that all anti-shipping attacks are too successful in the game - that something needs to be done to reduce the number of hits made by bombers of both sides.

 
Do I think it's too accurate (both level bombing and torpedos).  Yes.
 
But I also think that most ships take too much punishment before going down (combination of them being too robust to begin with, the fact that they often take 3-4 days to sink, and that strikes continue to pummel a striken ship).
 
So I'll add the warning that if you make the targeting harder (fewer hits), you also make it much more difficult to sink something.
 
Now, that all may have been address previously in this thread (not sure), and I'd bet that (even if it wasn't addressed), that it has been looked at - given the new damage locations means reworking the damage code anyway).
 
But I'm just saying that be careful for reducing the accuracy (which would be empirically correct), because it would probably make things even harder to sink.
 
-F-