Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: che200

If you read who cares posts you will find a very negative attitude regarding this game and how it is programmed, Personally i think he is a troll. Quite a pity i missed this thread would have been fun. Regarding the air model if you are interested in knowing how it was historically I would recommend to read Samurai by Saburo Sakai and you will see the problems the Japanese had with 4 engined bombers.

Devs like ELF and the others got a raw game AI wise and made it playable.

Quite a pity i missed the beginning of this thread.


P.S. If any trolls does not know who Saburo Sakai is there is Wikipedia enjoy !

One thing I learned is never hate on the Dev's, I swear every time you piss one off AE3 is delayed another 2 weeks.

ORIGINAL: Frank

Somehow the whole discussion made a long way from the starting post until now.
Imho, the problem is, that the bomber gunners are possibly too good in shooting down fighters and the moral of the bombers is possibly too high. I am quite sure, that 3 B24s would have run for their lifes, when attacked by about 50 Japanese fighters.

I think Frank sums the problem up perfectly. The 4Es get through to bomb the target, no matter what the odds, whereas Allied 2E bombers seem to turn back if faced with heavy odds.

Most of us Jap players are not asking for more 4E shot down, rather simply that they turn back when faced with heavy odds....no way in real life would 10 unescorted 4E bombers try to get through a 100 fighter CAP.

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Their skill was in the high 60s and some 70s 4 months ago when the "bombing campaign" began. It isn't THIS experience I am commenting on.

Ok. If I am to understand then, you don't have a problem with the way your high EXP, High Mission count crews are gaining EXP.

Its the "training" experience. You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game.

20 seems a bit low for the National average USAAC pilot. Are you sure it isn't more like 25-35?

Now lest memory fail me, a US pilots training was 13 months. So to get to 36 experience (for the sake of argument) which is roughly what they are at when they become available "in game" is 13 months. Figure 1 month of that teaching them to walk and talk like US soldiers means 36 experience in 12 months or 3 skill points PER MONTH. But once on the map, they gain 1 to 3 skill points per day (if you count the "experience", whatever their primary training is, and defense 1 each). "Training" should result in at most 1 point a week not 1 a day. Seems that's about the rate a pilot is getting in combat under current model. And again, combat should increase skill at a much faster rate than "training". MUCH faster. Not saying it should zoom into the 90s, but what I AM saying is that 2 pilots at skill 30 for example, one in training and 1 in combat. The one in combat should gain skill MUCH FASTER (assuming he survives) than the one "in training". As is, this isn't true.

Sounds like the game, the code, and what you are seeing is more at odds with your opinion or expectation based on your own unrelated experiences than it is with anything else. You seem to use the word "should" alot. What do you base these statements of what it "should" do on?

(Ed. maybe you should look at the code for the ground units experience.)

Why?

Again we are also not addressing the issue of bombers flying max range, at night, every night for months and 5 total planes lost and no crew losses. Not going to let this slip away either.

Why would you be flying a B-17 group at night for months? They were used primarily in a day role.

I seriously doubt the ratio of unescorted raids in the real war was anything near what I am experiencing either but this will be another topic after I gather more data on what I am seeing.

Let me get this straight...you are uipset your Escorts are not making their rendezvous at night?

ORIGINAL: Miller

I my game now at April 44 I often see small raids of 3-6 4E going in against 50-100 fighters on CAP (Tojos and/or Franks). The average result seems to be a couple of damaged 4E, maybe one shot down. They never abort a mission, no matter how heavy the opposition. My pilots are on average 60 overall skill, 70-75 air skill.

4E bombers, by design and doctrine, press on to the target. That was the way it was. They felt they could protect themselves. In most cases, especially in the PTO, they were right. In the game it would take the perfect storm of MOR loss, FAT, and a strong initial attack to force a withdrawal.

50-100 fighters on CAP will not ALL concentrate on 3-6 4E bombers. There is a point of diminishing returns on CAP allocating force to an intercept of a small raid. It may show 50-100 Fighters in the combat, but only a portion of that CAP will actually engage the small raid, lest there be another larger raid incoming as well.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.

Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

It would seem that it is because the OP is flying his bombers at night....I could be wrong.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.

Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

It would seem that it is because the OP is flying his bombers at night....I could be wrong.

I didn't notice that..., and it would certainly explain the lack of escorts. But given the Japanese lack of radar-equipped interceptors, isn't the rate of interception kinda high for night raids?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Miller

I my game now at April 44 I often see small raids of 3-6 4E going in against 50-100 fighters on CAP (Tojos and/or Franks). The average result seems to be a couple of damaged 4E, maybe one shot down. They never abort a mission, no matter how heavy the opposition. My pilots are on average 60 overall skill, 70-75 air skill.

4E bombers, by design and doctrine, press on to the target. That was the way it was. They felt they could protect themselves. In most cases, especially in the PTO, they were right. In the game it would take the perfect storm of MOR loss, FAT, and a strong initial attack to force a withdrawal.

50-100 fighters on CAP will not ALL concentrate on 3-6 4E bombers. There is a point of diminishing returns on CAP allocating force to an intercept of a small raid. It may show 50-100 Fighters in the combat, but only a portion of that CAP will actually engage the small raid, lest there be another larger raid incoming as well.

Thank you Elf you have answered the question.

The American's were an awkward country militarily, with the idea of the B17 and being that it could fly to its target and back without an escort fighter.

"Bomber always get trough" it was a saying and a reality in the 30's, look at Spanish Civil War, which was the golden period for bombers. Many Bombers were faster than fighters and casualities were low, due also to small 7.7 fighter armament and inadequacy of early warning. Only with Hurricane,Bf109 things started to change and that was only possible due to more powerful engines.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1





Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

It would seem that it is because the OP is flying his bombers at night....I could be wrong.

I didn't notice that..., and it would certainly explain the lack of escorts. But given the Japanese lack of radar-equipped interceptors, isn't the rate of interception kinda high for night raids?

there is no evidence either way of Radar being present or not. The OP hasn't provided any in his screenshots.

From the OP´s screenshot on post one I´d say The Elf hit the mark and hes flying at night.
Although identifying this takes a bit of imagination since it looks like this was somehow deliberately made unreadable...

Anyways, to me it seems that discussion is nearly over isn´t it?
Was fun to read though. [:D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game.

I haven't seen that with even a single pilot. You can train them up in a skill to about 70 in a few months, but not experience. Or is the skill what you mean?

like I´ve said earlier, he´s mixing up skill and experience. He means skill and is correct that you can train from (below) 20 to 70 in 2-3 months. You can´t get their experience from 20 to 70 with training in 2 months though.

ORIGINAL: che200

If you read who cares posts you will find a very negative attitude regarding this game and how it is programmed, Personally i think he is a troll. Quite a pity i missed this thread would have been fun. Regarding the air model if you are interested in knowing how it was historically I would recommend to read Samurai by Saburo Sakai and you will see the problems the Japanese had with 4 engined bombers.

Devs like ELF and the others got a raw game AI wise and made it playable.

Quite a pity i missed the beginning of this thread.


P.S. If any trolls does not know who Saburo Sakai is there is Wikipedia enjoy !

wikipedia? [8|]

First thing that passed through my mind[:D]

The main problem the IJAAF pilots had with 4e planes was that often they'd go up against them armed with only two light or heavy mg's (if they were lucky) -at least the IJN pilots had a couple of 20mm canons. No wonder a lot of the IJAAF pilots decided that ramming was the more attractive option...

So far nobody gave me the answer why are 4es able to shot fast and heavily armed fighters to hell over and over again, while those same fighters get only 2 or 3 oportunities to shoot back... On the other hand, I rarely see any jap bomber to drive off allied fighter (yes, I know they are slower, and with light guns, but... ). The way things are now in my game- B-25s and 4Es are the main fighter killers... when there comes an escorted raid- P-38s got chewed up by N1K1s with ease, but 4Es just blast them away.... And again, I'm not talking about Oscars or Zeroes here, but Georges... Oscars seem to be main $Es killers in my game.... [8|] [X(]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

So far nobody gave me the answer why are 4es able to shot fast and heavily armed fighters to hell over and over again, while those same fighters get only 2 or 3 oportunities to shoot back... On the other hand, I rarely see any jap bomber to drive off allied fighter (yes, I know they are slower, and with light guns, but... ). The way things are now in my game- B-25s and 4Es are the main fighter killers... when there comes an escorted raid- P-38s got chewed up by N1K1s with ease, but 4Es just blast them away.... And again, I'm not talking about Oscars or Zeroes here, but Georges... Oscars seem to be main $Es killers in my game.... [8|] [X(]

I agree that the Allied 4E bombers are fighter killers and always get through, but my B-25 and B-26 get shot to pieces by enemy fighters if they encounter them.

Cv Zuikaku did you start the game after patch 3 or before ?

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s?

Define "huge". You know, 4Es were not nearly that numerous in RL Pacific, as they are in AE, right? But just to avoid citing numerous examples from CBI theatre, look at this episode, which included lost B-24s:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=8176.0

ORIGINAL: Misconduct
I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers.

Yet they clearly had. You know when Allies sent unescorted Liberators against Rabaul at the first time? 9 March of 1944. As late as January of 1944 Allies lost 8 B-24s per 263 sorties over Rabaul area (note, that in RL 1 loss per 33 sorties is a rather high figure). As about the battles where Allies didn't have overwhelming material superiority, their air offensive against Rangoon from 11/25 to 12/6 of 1943 resulted in loss of 12 B-24s and 3 Wellingtons out of 222 bomber sorties.

ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

Flukes happen, assumed that episode was even remembered correctly. Also, if you stop reading Sakai selectively, you'll find, for example, that a Zero can keep even in level flight chase with Airacobra, so he is probably not a source you want to bring up as a proof that Japanese planes sucked.

ORIGINAL: Misconduct
The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

Significant level of success. Combats of small bomber groups raiding at night, at high altitude or against outlying bases, against even smaller intercepting fighter groups involved about 1:1 loss ratio, with results getting better for Japanese when Allied tried to press on their attack and met massed CAP, as described above.

ORIGINAL: Misconduct
My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Even the most cursory examination of actual combat episodes reveals that unescorted 4E raids against major and active Japanese bases weren't even contemplated until the advent of B-29s. Yet in AE you can get away with this regularly.

As I mentioned before, it is not accurate to use B-24 loss stats to extrapolate to B-17 loss rates. They were very different aircraft, despite both being 4E bombers. The B-17 was a much more robust design that should see lower losses than B-24s.

Mike

ORIGINAL: FatR

Even the most cursory examination of actual combat episodes reveals that unescorted 4E raids against major and active Japanese bases weren't even contemplated until the advent of B-29s. Yet in AE you can get away with this regularly.

So there were no unescorted bombing raids against Rebaul in 1942?

Revenge of the Red Raiders is the most thorough account of this important US Army Air Corp bombardment group. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor the 22nd BG was rushed to Australia and went into action over Rabaul in April of 1942 with the B-26 Marauder in a series of daring unescorted raids. In mid-1943, it partially converted to the B-25 Mitchell before changing to the B-24 Liberator during the spring of 1944. The unit was stationed on Okinawa at the end of the war.

435TH BOMBARDMENT SQUADRON
The 435th Bombardment Squadron (heavy), a unit of the 19th Bombardment Group (heavy), between 10 September 1942 and 10 October 1942, fulfilled frequent reconnaissance and photographic missions with unescorted Flying Fortresses, inflicting severe damage on the enemy over a wide area including New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon Islands. Hampered by adverse weather which necessitated low flying for observation, and by hostile anti-aircraft fire and fighter attacks, the 435th secured and transmitted accurate information on enemy shipping, made valuable photographs of important enemy-held bases and areas, and damaged enemy aircraft, ground installations and shipping. Notwithstanding many hours of flight and repeated combat damage, the ground echelon maintained 80% of the aircraft in combat condition at all times. (The 435th was also cited as a unit of the 19th Group for action 1 August 1942 until 12 August 1942, and as a unit of the U.S. Papuan Forces.)