B17 Losses too heavy

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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).

As of 061542 172 A6M2's lost in AtA. 130 B-17's in AtA.[;)]
Barely hundreds.[;)]

I'd agree to better durability for B-17's with less loadout and real range settings.
With reduced replacements.

Next couple of PBEM's will be Pry's translations of the WITP.[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko



*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.

As a well known "Allied FanBoy" (I'm actually a "History FanBoy", but to the Japanese FanBoys that's the same thing), I would like to point out that I proposed a solution to the entire basing problem almost as soon as the game came out and I saw the sillyness the designers had chosen to use. My suggestion was to base capacity and servicing on the
size and mission type of the A/C. Basically a single engined fighter or attack plane would count as "1" against base size and support; a twin-engined bomber as "2"; and a four-engined bomber as "3". So a level one airbase with a support unit capible of handling
30 airpoints could handle 30 fighters, 20 medium bombers, or 10 heavys. A simple change that would have solved most of the problems and complaints.

Instead we have the designers mishmash of various base size limits---which then forced them to put wrong sized bases in many locations (Midway, for instance) so that places
that DID operate some heavy bombers could do so in the game (result being that the tiny islands of Midway Atoll can be made to operate 300 heavy bombers.) Don't blame the Fans---this was a designed screw-up. And those "massive raids" you complain about occur because the designers put too many B-17's in the OB.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


By this point in WITP's development cycle (or life cycle) nearly all opinions are based on "emotional reaction". Your first post in this thread was based on feeling "cheated" by game results, thus, emotional reaction. But true to "Allied Fanboy Manifesto" you don't recognise it as such (OK, this was a joke, sort of.)

... snip ...

It was not based on some scientific formula that would say exactly, to fifth decimal point, what losses should side A suffer if attacked by X B17s.
If you think biggest, first and foremost problem with B17s is their vulnerability to Zeros, then I feel I have every right to label your posts "emotional reaction", and "Allied fanboyism" as well (most dangerous disease on WITP boards overall, in my strictly personal opinion).

O.

My first post in this thread was to report data from a game I was playing ( where BTW I am the Japanese player ) ... where 52 B17Es were lost to 4 A6M and 4 KI61. I call that data ( and I might point out that the majority of the fighters in my example were Tony's not Zeros ! ).

Further I stated that these losses were too heavy. And based on comparison to any RL combat between US 4E Bombers and enemy air defenses this is a fact based statement.

You have a right to label anything as anything you like. But that doesn't make it useful or relevant. I am trying to focus on issues not people. Whereas "Name calling" would be in the "people" not issues category.

My purpose in starting this thread was not to try to address each and every issue problem with 4E bombers in the game - but really just to report some data that I found at the exteme edge of anything I'd seen to date in the game. Based on the responses, most seem to agree that this result is extreme as compared to any available historical data. Whether anything is to be done about will be for others to decide, my purpose was to report. But I am encouraged by Nik's post to the effect that increasing durability and decreasing total B17 numbers is being tested - I think these sound like useful changes.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
But I am encouraged by Nik's post to the effect that increasing durability and decreasing total B17 numbers is being tested - I think these sound like useful changes.

I think he just said he plans to implement those changes in his mod, not that they are being tested for any "official" revision of the game. I may have misunderstood him though, or missed some of his posts? [&:]

As for your other points... you now insist on some subtle nuances, which I may or may not accept as valid arguments (I will, being the good natured guy that I am [:D]), but the sad truth of this board is... every thread with words "ASW", "B17", "naval bombing" or "Zero" will degenerate into Allied fanboy club drunken party by page 2, sometimes with utterly ridicolous "solutions" and suggestions being made, and losing the sight of forest, for some trees.

Perhaps it was not your intention couple dozen posts ago, but that is how it is.

Now, about your first post. I simply think it is some anomaly (I won't call it a bug) produced by B17s flying too high. In my games I have a house rule "no bombing above 25k feet" in part because above that, and especially above 30k feet all sorts of funny things tend to happen: ridicolous casualties to attacker OR defender, fantastic accuracy and deadliness of bombers etc.

If you want, try to re run the same turn with bombers set to 12k feet.

O.

[Mr.Frag]

I simply think it is some anomaly (I won't call it a bug)

Here's where things get messy ...

To *really* look at the result, one needs to know the settings on both sides. Obviously cap intercepting bombers at 32,000 feet also need to be flying up high. They can not scramble and catch bombers at that height.

I didn't happen to see the original post (as is normally the case with a lot of threads that tend to dog pile fast). That result certainly smells of a bug. The bombers taking that level of punishment should have taken a morale cratering and broken off the attack in large numbers long before taking those kinds of losses.

If both players would like to send me email of how they were configured, it would be helpful and may actually produce some results.

As 32,000 just happens to be very near 32768 (which is a potential overflow problem with signed vs unsigned integers), this could be something of a similar nature to that seen when bombers about 32767 feet got amazing results as they were actually bombing from below ground level.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
As 32,000 just happens to be very near 32768 (which is a potential overflow problem with signed vs unsigned integers), this could be something of a similar nature to that seen when bombers about 32767 feet got amazing results as they were actually bombing from below ground level.

Wasn't that fixed in one of the patches?

[Burzmali]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

Wasn't that fixed in one of the patches?

The part where the bombs were far too accurate was... as for interceptions....

[Halsey]

In reply to jwilkerson:

I bet if your opponent was to put his data in, you'll see the majority of the kills went to Zeroes and not to the Ki-61's.

It would be interesting to see which got more kills.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I think he just said he plans to implement those changes in his mod, not that they are being tested for any "official" revision of the game. I may have misunderstood him though, or missed some of his posts? [&:]

Correct, except that the change being discusssed in this thread has already been changed. (See the admitedly poorly named "Beer wars" AAR for more) The B-17's available to Kaiser73 are not your standard B-17's in the stock scenerio. I plan on making the mod.....what the heck should I call it... maybe Nik's mod very soon though i still need to write up the FAQ and I am making some major air changes that may help blunt the big carrier battle effect. I want to start a new PBEM and test em but maybe I should just say Banzai and offer it as is to Spooky and let other people test it and provide feedback. (assuming he'll take it of course) I dont have a server of my own at present

Overall i've been very pleased with the results so far, particularily with ASW.....save for my two problem children, Oscar and Nate. I also may incorporate Pry and Don's work on AP/AK's though i have an additional idea on how to slow logistics down as well.

Yippie! I love editors.

[:D]

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
But I am encouraged by Nik's post to the effect that increasing durability and decreasing total B17 numbers is being tested - I think these sound like useful changes.

Now, about your first post. I simply think it is some anomaly (I won't call it a bug) produced by B17s flying too high. In my games I have a house rule "no bombing above 25k feet" in part because above that, and especially above 30k feet all sorts of funny things tend to happen: ridicolous casualties to attacker OR defender, fantastic accuracy and deadliness of bombers etc.

If you want, try to re run the same turn with bombers set to 12k feet.

O.

I fly my B-17's at 36600' on "all" airfield/port/city missions.
That's max altitude, and so far I haven't seen any crazy results.
Since only Oscar's can fly that high, the AtA against them has been reasonable to the point that the Japanese player quit flying them.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I simply think it is some anomaly (I won't call it a bug)

Here's where things get messy ...

To *really* look at the result, one needs to know the settings on both sides. Obviously cap intercepting bombers at 32,000 feet also need to be flying up high. They can not scramble and catch bombers at that height.

I didn't happen to see the original post (as is normally the case with a lot of threads that tend to dog pile fast). That result certainly smells of a bug. The bombers taking that level of punishment should have taken a morale cratering and broken off the attack in large numbers long before taking those kinds of losses.

If both players would like to send me email of how they were configured, it would be helpful and may actually produce some results.

As 32,000 just happens to be very near 32768 (which is a potential overflow problem with signed vs unsigned integers), this could be something of a similar nature to that seen when bombers about 32767 feet got amazing results as they were actually bombing from below ground level.

I will send Frag the "before turn" ... and the Japanese password ... and ask TommyG to send the Allied password.

Interesting theory about 32k altitude being the problem. TommyG had just started flying at this altitude and we had not had a major battle since he did so ( I was saving up the Tony's to use them in one mass initially ).

[Nikademus]

looks like I recalled correctly

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Halsey


As of 061542 172 A6M2's lost in AtA. 130 B-17's in AtA.[;)]
Barely hundreds.[;)]

You're right, my bad. I was also thinking of the 95 A6Ms that the B17s had destroyed on the ground (3 at a time), and the 105 op losses. [:'(]

I'd agree to better durability for B-17's with less loadout and real range settings.
With reduced replacements.

Next couple of PBEM's will be Pry's translations of the WITP.[;)]

Agreed. And if his B17s aren't tough enough, and scarce enough, we should mod his mod.[;)]

[tsimmonds]

Since only Oscar's can fly that high, the AtA against them has been reasonable to the point that the Japanese player quit flying them.

Yeah, that's coz your 17s killed them all,[X(] 183 A2A, 53 on the ground, 248 total. Got just 12 Oscars left on the map to keep you honest.[;)]

[Halsey]

I like Oscars![:D]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I like Oscars![:D]

Yeah - for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner ! [;)]

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I like Oscars![:D]

I did too[:(]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Interesting theory about 32k altitude being the problem. TommyG had just started flying at this altitude and we had not had a major battle since he did so ( I was saving up the Tony's to use them in one mass initially ).

One of my opponents was using B17s on 33k (back long ago in UV days). NO Japanese fighter was capable of climbing above 32957 feet or somesuch. Thus, his bombers flew like 30-something feet above my fighters ceiling. I almost wanted to tell my pilots to throw stones at them since they're so close. But in game terms they could never attack them.

Since "integer overflow" bug Frag talks about was not solved back then, not only B17s were 100% immune to IJN fighters, they were also incredibly deadly and accurate. Casualties piled in thousdands, from a small to moderate sized raids (20-30 aircraft).

I don't like house rules but that's when I introduced "no bombing above 25k feet" and use it ever since.

Note that 32k feet is just couple hundered feet below Oscar and Zero ceiling. Playing with such extreme settings is at least semi gamey, it's not realistic (combat at these altitudes could be compared with infantry fighting on the North Pole, and bombers would be extremely inaccurate) and it's just inviting strange results to happen... (Strange results then lead to new threads with "Magic words". Magic words then awake Allied fanboys, and we all know what happens then [:D][8D])

O.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Panzer76

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
And the only way around this nonsense is to very closely manage all of your assets every turn.

Welcome to WitP, your micro mananaging hell I gave up on this game a long time ago, terrible UI.

The UI is something out of DOS World, with scant support for the user in any number of rather obvious areas. Terrible interface. But for all that what I find most irritating is the even worse manual. I've read that thing from front to back several times, and I can't tell how many times I go into that document (I use the term document liberally here) each turn to try and discover some new "truth" about how the system is at least supposed to behave . . . and for all my frustration with the poorly-written manual itself, worse still is the fact it's not accessible from within the game and properly hyper-linked, so there I sit with a pile of loose-leafs, endlessly flipping through the pages. . . .

All I can do is shake my head. [8D]

For what it's worth (and God forgive me) I doubt anyone micromanages his games more closely than I do. At the beginning of each PBEM turn I start on the west coast of the States and work my way toward India, and along my slow and anal way I check each and every convoy, each and every base, each and every air unit in all those bases, etc., to try and be sure I haven't missed anything. One has to do this because of that rotten interface. For instance, how would one know that one of his squadrons was short a pilot if he didn't check every air unit every turn? He wouldn't. And why isn't something this obvious charted by the game, with due notice given the player?

Anyway, in spite of my style of play I miss stuff, sometimes important stuff, each turn. This last turn versus Mogami I missed that B-17 squadron fragment--actually I didn't "miss" it but failed to remember and take into proper consideration just how funky the AI can be, and thus my decision to leave the 3/1 fragment at Pearl was a mistake.

Oh, well. There are bigger fish to fry in this forum, unfortunately.

You know what I'd really like? Another game on the PTO by a new company with fresh ideas and deep pockets. Dare I so hope?

[Mike Scholl]

Doubt it, John. There is a pretty limited market for a game this detailed and intense on the Pacific War, and it's doubtfull there is another game company willing to put in the time and money so quickly on the heels of matrix. Best hope is if the code is made available and some of the "experts" who have commented on this forum are so frustrated they undertake it as a "labor of love". The true aggrivation of the game as it stands now is not how badly if falls down in some areas, but how close it comes to being outstanding in others. It's like a fantastic looking wedding cake..., but the baker mistook salt for sugar when mixing it. You see beauty, but when you take a bite you choke.