Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
IAICATAWTP ("I am in complete and total agreement with this post!")Originally posted by Nikademus
* snip *
So my suggestion remains, leave the air model alone but slash the ACC of the defensive fire big time. Killing fighters is the job of escorting fighters, bomber defenisve fire is the emergency backup and morale booster. Let us see no more fighter sweeps using strategic bombers
Originally posted by DSandberg
Okay, even though I'm staunchly in favor of removing the "bomber sweeps" from the game via whatever method is necessary, for a moment I'm going to play devil's advocate ...
One thing that concerns me about simply reducing the accuracy of the bomber's weapons is if this will allow fighters to get more shots at bombers and hence make the kill ratio of bombers go up. This could easily be a side effect of such a change, and I think an undesirable one.
What I don't know is this: does UV's air combat resolution engine implement any sort of penalty to firing accuracy when a plane is also currently being fired at itself, either from the ground or from other aircraft? My point is this: even though the accuracy of the bomber's fire should be such that only small numbers of attacking aircraft are actually killed, nonetheless the simple volume of defensive fire coming from level bombers (especially en masse) should have effects on disturbing the accuracy of an attacking fighter. A similar effect ought to be present when aircraft (especially those flying at low levels) attack ground or naval targets that are defended by high levels of AAA. Such effects should be much less present when attacking smaller groups of ships or aircraft (or when the defenders have fewer anti-aircraft weapons). This type of penalty to the accuracy of an attacker's shots ought to be present as a significant part of the effects of defensive fire from bombers (or from a fleet, or the ground in general for that matter).
If such effects are actually present in UV, this will hopefully allow defensive fire from bombers to continue to be of equal value in protecting the bombers even while killing a few less fighters outright, which would be a desirable outcome. But if they are not, then I'm concerned that the simple tweak of "lowering bomber fire accuracy" might result in an increase in the bombers that are shot down, to a point beyond realistic levels.
To boil it down, the question is this: can the air combat be tweaked to have fewer attacking fighters shot down by bombers, without simultaneously increasing the number of bombers that are being damaged or destroyed by those fighters (due to them surviving to close in and take their shots)? I.e., can the defensive value of bombers' guns be preserved at the current level, while lessening only the offensive value of those same guns?
- David
I dont think lowering bomber D-Fire acc would necesarily increase bomber casaulties to an unreasonable level if at all. After all, Japanese bomber casualties (unescorted) vs Allied fighters feels about right and 2nd'ly, the reduction of D-fire would not affect the ARMOR or DUR ratings of the Allied medium and heavy bombers, nor would it address the low firepower (against heavy bombers) of the A6M and worse, the KI-43.Originally posted by DSandberg
Okay, even though I'm staunchly in favor of removing the "bomber sweeps" from the game via whatever method is necessary, for a moment I'm going to play devil's advocate ...
One thing that concerns me about simply reducing the accuracy of the bomber's weapons is if this will allow fighters to get more shots at bombers and hence make the kill ratio of bombers go up. This could easily be a side effect of such a change, and I think an undesirable one.
What I don't know is this: does UV's air combat resolution engine implement any sort of penalty to firing accuracy when a plane is also currently being fired at itself, either from the ground or from other aircraft? My point is this: even though the accuracy of the bomber's fire should be such that only small numbers of attacking aircraft are actually killed, nonetheless the simple volume of defensive fire coming from level bombers (especially en masse) should have effects on disturbing the accuracy of an attacking fighter. A similar effect ought to be present when aircraft (especially those flying at low levels) attack ground or naval targets that are defended by high levels of AAA. Such effects should be much less present when attacking smaller groups of ships or aircraft (or when the defenders have fewer anti-aircraft weapons). This type of penalty to the accuracy of an attacker's shots ought to be present as a significant part of the effects of defensive fire from bombers (or from a fleet, or the ground in general for that matter).
If such effects are actually present in UV, this will hopefully allow defensive fire from bombers to continue to be of equal value in protecting the bombers even while killing a few less fighters outright, which would be a desirable outcome. But if they are not, then I'm concerned that the simple tweak of "lowering bomber fire accuracy" might result in an increase in the bombers that are shot down, to a point beyond realistic levels.
To boil it down, the question is this: can the air combat be tweaked to have fewer attacking fighters shot down by bombers, without simultaneously increasing the number of bombers that are being damaged or destroyed by those fighters (due to them surviving to close in and take their shots)? I.e., can the defensive value of bombers' guns be preserved at the current level, while lessening only the offensive value of those same guns?
- David
Besides which, Japanese and Allied accounts that i've read do not stack the Allied medium bombers in the same DUR club as the heavies, though obviously they were in a better boat than the IJN varients (who also proved tougher than most think too....i finally understand Joe Foss's comments now regarding the Beatty)Excellent! Your approach to the problem is clearly far more in-depth than the "make all bomber guns weaker" approach would have been. It sounds like it should work very well indeed, as it addresses the core behavior that is causing the high fighter attrition rates vs heavy bombers, rather than just the symptoms.Originally posted by Mike Wood
I am currently instructing the Zero pilots to try to shoot these tough planes down, but not to kill themselves, in the process. Make fewer passes, start firing earlier and veer off before the bomber guns can effectively engage and not to fly through the enemy formations. These instructions will apply when attacking big, tough, multi-engine planes with lots of guns, such as the B-25, B-26, B-17 and B-24. In combat against weaker aircraft, such as the Beaufort, they are to continue pressing the attack.
Mike's post clearly makes this discussion somewhat pointless, but I do want to clarify one thing: while, as you say, neither the ARMOR/DUR ratings of the Allied bombers nor the low firepower of the JPN fighters would be altered, the one thing that I think could potentially have changed would be the number of shots, and especially close-in shots, that the attacking fighters get to take at the bombers, due to the better survivability of the fighters in such a matchup. I think this could easily have resulted in higher Allied bomber casualties than the current level.Originally posted by Nikademus
I dont think lowering bomber D-Fire acc would necesarily increase bomber casaulties to an unreasonable level if at all. After all, Japanese bomber casualties (unescorted) vs Allied fighters feels about right and 2nd'ly, the reduction of D-fire would not affect the ARMOR or DUR ratings of the Allied medium and heavy bombers, nor would it address the low firepower (against heavy bombers) of the A6M and worse, the KI-43.
agreed. We are pretty much in on the same track here. I guess my tail hugging maneuvers are generated by concern that the new solution will be to reduce potential hits on unescorted bombers bringing things back closer to the 2.0 era. I just dont want to see unescorted bombers, and particularily medium bombers being able to ignore strong CAP's again as in previous patches. Thus my concern that the "solution" Mike has hinted at would involve a bunch of "enemy fighter driven off by defensive fire" msgs. My readings on Pacific war bomber combat did not indicate alot of this happening, particularily Allied vs Japanese bombers. Most were able to conduct their runs, regardless of what the enemy gunners attempted.....it just turned out that Japanese bombers didn't always blow up or catch fire the way many think they did, but persistant and multiple attacks would eventually bring a decent number down.Originally posted by DSandberg
Mike's post clearly makes this discussion somewhat pointless, but I do want to clarify one thing: while, as you say, neither the ARMOR/DUR ratings of the Allied bombers nor the low firepower of the JPN fighters would be altered, the one thing that I think could potentially have changed would be the number of shots, and especially close-in shots, that the attacking fighters get to take at the bombers, due to the better survivability of the fighters in such a matchup. I think this could easily have resulted in higher Allied bomber casualties than the current level.
This presupposes that you feel, as do I, that the current 2.11 patch has the bomber destruction/damage levels on BOTH sides of the conflict (not just JPN) just about right.
It's a moot point now, because I think we're agreed that Mike is onto a very satisfactory solution to the problem.
- David
I agree. I think the contemplated change may just allow the bombers to get off scott free. They may abort, but there is nothing to stop them from coming back and doing another fighter sweep all over. Reducing their accuracy some would allow the fighters to press their attacks a little bit longer.Originally posted by Nikademus
Guess what i'm saying is, "offensive" or "defensive" i dont feel that gunfire from bombers isn't half as accurate as those same weapons mounted on the wing of a dedicated figther with a trained pilot. Hence, along with what Mike is suggesting i do feel that D-fire ACC should not be at the same level as those weapons when mounted on a fighter and controlled by an experienced pilot.
I can understand your point. I am still assuming that Mike's statement "(fighters) start firing earlier and veer off before the bomber guns can effectively engage and (don't) fly through the enemy formations" means that the actual shots that the fighters do get to take against heavy bombers will be decreased to a far lesser degree than will the defensive fire from such bombers. But I can also see where a mixture of Mike's solution and a modest reduction of accuracy for heavy bombers' guns could be a good approach too. I don't want to see the bombers become either helpless victims or invulnerable giants as part of the quest to solve the "bomber sweep" problem.Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I agree. I think the contemplated change may just allow the bombers to get off scott free. They may abort, but there is nothing to stop them from coming back and doing another fighter sweep all over. Reducing their accuracy some would allow the fighters to press their attacks a little bit longer.
This would be critically bad news for the hundreds of PBEM games on hold waiting for this patch.............Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I should note, that if the accuracy rating was involved in the change, then this would not effect on going games. Only new games would benefit from this change.
