AA Patch - unofficial and temporary.

[governato]

First things first: I am glad we have an AA patch. Given the fact that it has been developed by a fellow gamer, with limited resources and time, I think it's great and perhaps the rest is details.

But for the sake of details: high altitude bombers would fly most of their missions (to and from targets) and much lower altitude and so be exposed to all kinds of AA fire at least for part of their mission.


Here is an example:

http://ww2today.com/16th-september-1943 ... ver-france

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work



Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.

Not every run anyway. Why would this be made part of the routine? Seems kinda arbitrary. "Hey, let's code low level AA into high level bombing runs too. Pass me another beer."

Norm - blessed he shall be [&o] - did this. For whatever reason.. wasn't he an airforce man?

That doesn't prevent this from change.. Plans have already been drafted to revise this completely. Which however doesn't mean anytime soon..

No, it was post Norm - TOAW III only. Maybe JAM or Heat? It was before I came onboard.

But when targeting ground forces, bombers would tend towards lower altitudes. And TOAW doesn't do strategic bombing. Bombers are used against ground forces. And, remember, it's only a fraction of low-level AAA - modeling only a fraction of the time that it would apply.

[SMK-at-work]

Curtis wrote:
But when targeting ground forces, bombers would tend towards lower altitudes.

Not in WW2 they don't

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: governato

First things first: I am glad we have an AA patch. Given the fact that it has been developed by a fellow gamer, with limited resources and time, I think it's great and perhaps the rest is details.

But for the sake of details: high altitude bombers would fly most of their missions (to and from targets) and much lower altitude and so be exposed to all kinds of AA fire at least for part of their mission.


Here is an example:

http://ww2today.com/16th-september-1943 ... ver-france

Not a real good example - they stated their climb over the sea off Bordeaux and bombed from 20,000 feet......

And if you've got time to research that you've got time to send me a turn

[Lobster]

A 20mm AA gun has an effective range of about 6k feet. 37mm about 9k. But, as was pointed out, no strategic bombing in TOAW. So, I guess it kind of makes sense when you think of it that way. Still, not going to find very many strategic bombers making ground attacks at light arms levels. Lancaster nap of the earth? Nuh uh. Only thing I can think of like that was Operation Chastise, the dam busters. 60 feet at 240mph. But over water with spot lights mounted fore and aft for precision height.

If I was to make a scenario I would simply not include heavy bombers.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Curtis wrote:
But when targeting ground forces, bombers would tend towards lower altitudes.

Not in WW2 they don't

I think you must be thinking of heavy (4-engine) bombers. These were very rarely used in ground support mode. The vast majority of high-altitude bombers represented in TOAW are medium (2-engine) bombers. These did lower altitudes when the targets were ground forces. On D-Day, for example, the mediums bombed at 3500 feet.

Again, when you consider that the effect is a fraction of low-altitude strength, it models affecting only a fraction of the cases. One day, we may be more sophisticated. But, until then, this averages out to close to correct.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes they bombed from lower than planned altitude to get under the cloud and actually see their targets on some beaches from 3500-7000 ft - whereas at Omaha the equivalent raids did not, blind bombed and completely missed!!

3500 ft was what the allies considered the maximum effective height of German 20mm FLAK - so at that height they were minimising their exposure although not totally eliminating it.

and sometimes Spitfires level bombed from 10,000 feet too using ground-based radar direction!

Still doesn't make it right

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes they bombed from lower than planned altitude to get under the cloud and actually see their targets on some beaches from 3500-7000 ft - whereas at Omaha the equivalent raids did not, blind bombed and completely missed!!

3500 ft was what the allies considered the maximum effective height of German 20mm FLAK - so at that height they were minimising their exposure although not totally eliminating it.

and sometimes Spitfires level bombed from 10,000 feet too using ground-based radar direction!

Still doesn't make it right

Kamerad Kiwi,

what's simulating the real deal nowadays? Just real life. Anyway. Are you working on a project? Plenty of us do. So, let's all join and make things better, aye? Kharkov '43 e.g. is about to be completed thanks to the support of countless members from the community.

Klink, Oberst

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes they bombed from lower than planned altitude to get under the cloud and actually see their targets on some beaches from 3500-7000 ft - whereas at Omaha the equivalent raids did not, blind bombed and completely missed!!

No. Actually it was the other way around:

"For a moment, it had seemed that low cloud might force the Eighth, better provided than were other forces for nonvisual bombing, to undertake the missions originally assigned to IX Bomber Command against targets in the UTAH area. However, Brig. Gen. Samuel E. Anderson sought, and received, authority to bomb visually under the 3,500-foot ceiling, and the project to divert the heavies from Caen was abandoned. Accordingly, the mediums took off between the hours of 0343 and 0500, flying in boxes of eighteen planes each. Because of continuing overcast the attacks went in at levels ranging from 3,500 to 7,000 feet."

So, they were ordered to bomb below 3500 feet, but conditions didn't permit bombing below 3500.

I would also point out that there were versions of such bombers equipped primarily for strafing mode (lots of MGs in the nose), not to mention ones equipped with torpedoes (gotta be on the deck to drop torpedoes).

3500 ft was what the allies considered the maximum effective height of German 20mm FLAK - so at that height they were minimising their exposure although not totally eliminating it.

Regardless of what they considered, that was not its maximum effective height - see post #65.

and sometimes Spitfires level bombed from 10,000 feet too using ground-based radar direction!

Still doesn't make it right

There are all sorts of tactical warfare aspects that TOAW must average out. This is just one more. High-altitude bombers were subject to low-altitude AAA some of the time.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

I started Salamon's Iran - Iraq War 1980 - 88 and it seems to work well, at least that is my initial impression, we have been only through three turns so far at best, me & Maus Man, but I also decided to use it in my another PBEM game, the 1st Chechen War which has been going for some time - the Chechens started to down choppers, mainly Hinds at an insane rate, about a dozen or so during a turn which lasts a week or so as far as I can remember. The case is that their units and subunits that were involved in direct action combat operations and became as a result targeted by combat support missions flown by Russian gunships, do not seem to have any separate AA or AAA systems so I am assuming that they're great shots and shoot down the choppers mainly with their small arms fire.Is it correct?

[Lobster]

Does anyone know if progress has been made with the work on the RFC/Ignore Losses patch? Thanks.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Does anyone know if progress has been made with the work on the RFC/Ignore Losses patch? Thanks.

Fabio and me are still testing. If you're interested, I can send you a sandbox scenario and the 'fix' that, according to Fabio, is the best one. It has the cryptic designator 3XCb or 3XDc.

Klink, Oberst

[Lobster]

I have not played much lately and it's been so long since I have played that I would not really know good from bad. In other words, I'm not reliable enough to judge what is right or wrong. Better left to the experts.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Fabio and me are still testing. If you're interested, I can send you a sandbox scenario and the 'fix' that, according to Fabio, is the best one. It has the cryptic designator 3XCb or 3XDc.

Klink, Oberst

It's OT of this thread, but if I may made a suggestion. There exist different utilities as viewer,scenario converter, equipmenteditors. But what I like to see is Unit editor. I mean with this that you can edit capabilities of the units.
Example you can made mountain unit also airmobile.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Fabio and me are still testing. If you're interested, I can send you a sandbox scenario and the 'fix' that, according to Fabio, is the best one. It has the cryptic designator 3XCb or 3XDc.

Klink, Oberst

It's OT of this thread, but if I may made a suggestion. There exist different utilities as viewer,scenario converter, equipmenteditors. But what I like to see is Unit editor. I mean with this that you can edit capabilities of the units.

This would require hacking the exe or a rewrite of code. The first being too difficult(?) along with other problems, the second being a part of the 3.5 patch (secondary unit icon).

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Example you can made mountain unit also airmobile.

Special Forces!

Manual, 8.2 Unit Special Capabilities (p. 20):

Special Forces: These units have large Reconnaissance capabilities
and a special capability to easily move near enemy units.
They also have all of the capabilities of Airborne, Airmobile, and
Mountain units.

All you would need to do is to edit the according unit graphics.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
But what I like to see is Unit editor. I mean with this that you can edit capabilities of the units.

This would require hacking the exe or a rewrite of code. The first being too difficult(?) along with other problems, the second being a part of the 3.5 patch (secondary unit icon).

Do you mean that in 3.5 patch a editor for units icon (capabilities) is included?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
But what I like to see is Unit editor. I mean with this that you can edit capabilities of the units.

This would require hacking the exe or a rewrite of code. The first being too difficult(?) along with other problems, the second being a part of the 3.5 patch (secondary unit icon).

Do you mean that in 3.5 patch a editor for units icon (capabilities) is included?

Hupp Holländer! You can flag the units being air mobile, to be precise, within the .EQP editor. Create equipment for your Dutch-Airborne-Mountain Troops and voilà!

Klink, Oberst

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


Hupp Holländer! You can flag the units being air mobile, to be precise, within the .EQP editor. Create equipment for your Dutch-Airborne-Mountain Troops and voilà!

Klink, Oberst

Herrn Oberst

This is not what I mean. This flag is only for equipment. Most of the unit/symbol/icon has one of more capabilities. I know that you can change the icon or replace it position. But you can't change (add?)the capabilities or say reconstution with capabilities etc.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


Hupp Holländer! You can flag the units being air mobile, to be precise, within the .EQP editor. Create equipment for your Dutch-Airborne-Mountain Troops and voilà!

Klink, Oberst

Herrn Oberst

This is not what I mean. This flag is only for equipment. Most of the unit/symbol/icon has one of more capabilities. I know that you can change the icon or replace it position. But you can't change (add?)the capabilities or say reconstution with capabilities etc.

Now I got you, yes. However, I am quite sure that, if the equipment is tagged as air mobile, being put into a Mountain icon, they both can be transported AND have the capability to fight-enter alpine regions. Only one way to find out I guess... a sandbox test.

Klink, Oberst

P.S. Any feedback on the article?

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


Hupp Holländer! You can flag the units being air mobile, to be precise, within the .EQP editor. Create equipment for your Dutch-Airborne-Mountain Troops and voilà!

Klink, Oberst

Herrn Oberst

This is not what I mean. This flag is only for equipment. Most of the unit/symbol/icon has one of more capabilities. I know that you can change the icon or replace it position. But you can't change (add?)the capabilities or say reconstution with capabilities etc.

Now I got you, yes. However, I am quite sure that, if the equipment is tagged as air mobile, being put into a Mountain icon, they both can be transported AND have the capability to fight-enter alpine regions. Only one way to find out I guess... a sandbox test.

Klink, Oberst

P.S. Any feedback on the article?

Non, no, no.... a unit is only airmobile by its unit icon. Of course the unit needs equipment that is airmobile and most light equipment and most infantry squads are, but that alone won't suffice.

Do you mean that in 3.5 patch a editor for units icon (capabilities) is included?

It's in the editor. You can "assign" a second unit icon to any unit. The 'first' (normal) icon is displayed in the game, the second icon is only visible in the editor. A unit with a secondary icon 'inherits' all capabilities of this icon, no matter what the first icon is. I.e. first icon is mountain infantry. To make it airmobile, set parachute infantry as the second icon.