Matrix Games Forums

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

That's actually fully realistic. Stop complaining...

You don't even know the scenario you're playing, and you're still whining about a broken game? Sheesh!

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

First off the game is not broken in the literal sense. Your results stem from a basic belief of the game designer that .50 cal machineguns are better than 20mm cannons. They made this assumption and the results you see are based on it. As for the 160 mod, I have played this mod twice and find that as the allies you can fly heavy bombers unescorted anywhere and be immune to flak and cap. The mod is for A2A a garbage mod but you just have to suck it up if you are playing the Japanese. You would have to ask the developers of the game why they decided to make the mg better than a cannon for actual WWII results do not support their conclusions. And remember anytime someone on this forum argues with history, it is easy to play the Aliies, after all we won the war. And there was no doubt of that outcome from the start of the pacific war. It is hard to play a side where from the start you are going to lose, that is why you have Allied fanboys, because it is easy. That of course is my opinion and it will be hotly contested.

1. There is the game, then there is reality. The disparity between the two adds up to infintie discussion possibilities.

2. You give us very little information about how to interpret your results. Proportion of bombers present? What was the experience of all the aircraft--bombers and fighters? "High" experience of fighters is qualitative not quantitative. Distance traveled to target, morale and relative fatigue of all units involved, LRCAP, CAP, etc? How many bombers were destroyed because they didn't make it back to base after getting damaged? Did you look at the aircraft info screen for the # of aircraft destroyed for the day?

3.

The loss ratio for Fighters attacking unescorted Bombers (1942-1943) was 0.187 Fighers lost pr unescorted Leavel Bomber shot down.

You are already trying to fit the square peg in the round hole by citing this information. Hoisting that statistic is a poor way to begin framing the argument. That statitistic (source?) is the conglomeration of a massive amount of data and it is merely interesting when compared to any single historical result, AND you are immediately comparing real life to a game. Watch out for that cliff.

How many historical examples can you cite of Libs, Wellingtons, and Fortresses mixing it up with Tojos in '42-'43? Give us stats on those instances (if there are any). That would be the best place to begin IF you want to take on the game vs reality discussion.

4. You get five points for polarizing the discussion before it begins:

i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.

ORIGINAL: High Command
As you can see, the kill ratio Fighter vs Bomber is in avverage 1 Bomber pr Fighter.
The loss ratio for Fighters attacking unescorted Bombers (1942-1943) was 0.187 Fighers lost pr unescorted Leavel Bomber shot down.

What piece of propaganda did you get this from? Approximately one-for-one was the average for the 8th Air Force during the time you cite. Which was 10-for-one in personel and quite nasty enough...

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

ORIGINAL: High Command

When attacking 177 Unescorted Bombers with 100 Fighters, i would based on historicle results and Aircraft Preformance, Pilot Avverage Skill, and other factors, demand that at least 50-125 Bombers were shot down, and thats a abseloute minimum!

I'm High Command's opponent. I just wanted to clarify a few things here as he has failed to present the actual evidence in this event that appears to be lopsided in his opinion.

I'm not here to debate whether or not CHS 2.08 scenario 160 is broken or not.

Here is the combat report:

Day Air attack on Poona , at 19,12

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
A6M3a Zero x 25
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 127
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 9

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb x 5
Kittyhawk I x 5
Blenheim IV x 13
Wellington III x 39
Liberator III x 6
P-40E Warhawk x 5
B-17E Fortress x 46
B-24D Liberator x 73
Hurricane IID/IV x 9
P-38F Lightning x 16
F-4 Lightning x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 9 damaged
A6M3a Zero: 2 destroyed, 21 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 58 destroyed, 11 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-61-Ib Tony: 5 destroyed
D3A2 Val: 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb: 4 destroyed
Kittyhawk I: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged
Wellington III: 5 destroyed, 29 damaged
Liberator III: 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 5 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 36 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 6 destroyed, 61 damaged
Hurricane IID/IV: 9 destroyed
P-38F Lightning: 16 destroyed
F-4 Lightning: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
10053 casualties reported
Guns lost 144

Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 105

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
8 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
8 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
8 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Blenheim IV bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Liberator III bombing at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
7 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Blenheim IV bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Liberator III bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Blenheim IV bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet

I count 40 escorts for this sortie.

I don't know if these other statements have any bearing on combat results:

These air groups are based at Bombay which is 1 hex from Poona.
Radar is present at Bombay.
Weather was light precipitation for the day that the sortie took place.
All of the Allied fighter groups are in the mid to upper 70s in experience.
The P-38s are flown by the AVG which have some 99 experience pilots in them.
All of the bomber groups are in the upper 70s to low 80s in experience.
All of my groups are lead by hand-picked capable, aggressive leaders.
Most of my units had very high morale.

Intel screen:



This was the only contested A2A engagement of the day.

I suffered 56 A2A losses to his 35.

I only noticed one Tojo being shot down by a B-24 during the replay.

Actual Aircraft losses:




In other words the allies shot down the following in A2A:

22 Tojo
2 Tony
5 A6M2
3 A6M3a
3 Nick

Japan shot down the following in A2A:

16 P-38
9 B-24D
9 Hurricane III/IVD
6 B-17E
5 P-40E
3 Wellington III
4 Hurricane IIb
2 Blenheim IV
2 Kittyhawk

I can understand him being upset as his base was pretty much nuked which is overstacked with 72 LCU present from my Intel. I don't think these results are unreasonable in my humble opinion.

ORIGINAL: OSO


Japanese ground losses:
10053 casualties reported
Guns lost 144

I can understand him being upset as his base was pretty much nuked which is overstacked with 72 LCU present from my Intel. I don't think these results are unreasonable in my humble opinion.

Talk about OVERSTACKING!!!

But there is not much wrong with these A-A results though....

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

Ah ok I think I understand now High Command you are looking at the A2A combat as though your remaining fighters had a free run at the bombers after all the fighters were eliminated but depending on how long the CAP v Escort battle went on they may not have had time to do more than one pass at the bombers and when they did they were probably disrupted.
 
WITP does not model A2A as two phases 1 v escorts then CAP v Bombers its all one massive furball.
 
had there been no escort at all and it was 100 UNESCORTED bombers attacking 100 Tojos with both sides comparable xp it would have been a massacre for the bombers
 
It has happened to me so many times its not funny losing 60 or 70 B29's to a Single Group of Tonies against PZB unescorted bombers are easy meat even the most heavily armed B29's get shot out of the sky.
 
The fact that these bombers were escorted meant that your fighters spent most of their time clearing out the escorts and would have made very limited runs against the bombers.
 
Andy
 
 

ORIGINAL: High Command

It is not, when attacking a Bomber Group with a Modern Figher, you dont loose as many fighters as Bombers.
I have now checked 126 (still looking) Air Operations and not found any, who has evan close to that results.
I have arround 200 more operations to read throu, i will know more in a few hours, but of the 126 i have red throu so far, not a singel one is evan close to a 1 Fighter for 1 Bomber ratio.

My Fraind recommended me to post here, i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.

Anyway, if you do have any knowlage of this it would be appriciated to here your oppinion,
Is this caused by the game or the mod?

Dang, talk about starting off wrong. I would say that 80% of the people here have a very vast knowledge of WW2 and alot of other wars.

You have to learn the game system. These results happen. You were really asking for a nuke attack with a base stacked up like that.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

It has happened to me so many times its not funny losing 60 or 70 B29's to a Single Group of Tonies against PZB unescorted bombers are easy meat even the most heavily armed B29's get shot out of the sky.

Yikes! That sounds painfully familiar to me! [:D] Substitute B24s for B29s and viberpol for PzB & that's the situation in our game. I've lost over 1400 B24s, almost 900 A2A. I long ago learned the lesson not to send unescorted 4Es against Tojos/Tonys/Jacks, etc.

Anyway, all things considered the results of this combat seem plausible to me. Most of the escorting fighters got slaughtered but kept the CAP busy enough to let most of the bombers through. BOOM! I'm sure it's painful to the Japanese player - I'd hate to lose 99 Tojos in a day - but take a break for a couple days to chill out then carry on.

ORIGINAL: High Command



Well ---> Above result talks for itself, i have found a few real wourld simuler attacks that is fairly compereble, the results are not simuler but anyway.

The unescorted attack on bombers, referes to after all escort is dead. The 101 planes attacking bombers had no good sucsess.


Anyway, my poingt is not realy only based on this game or incident.

I ren now a few tests in the Scenarios and see that the general Fighter vs Bomber results are Very week.
The 12.7mm Gun more powerfull then the 20mm Gun, and the P47D more manuvreble then the Zero!

Ect. Ect.

My Overall Generall Conclution is that the Air to Air modell is no good.

I would like to remind High Command and anyone else commenting on this thread that we are using CHS scenario 160. This scenario has the Soviets active at game start and uses an experimental A2A model.

This is copied and pasted directly from the CHS website:

Experimental A2A variant: This variant has modified scenario data, especially for aircraft, in an attempt to reduce the "bloodiness" of air-to-air combat, as well as some other "experimental" changes. The purpose of this scenario variant is to allow testing of these changes in an in-game environment. Specifically, the following data changes are applied:

* The starting experience values of all Allied pilots has been decreased by 10%, except for USN pilots.
* The starting experience values of all USN and Japanese pilots has been decreased by 5%.
* The Zero bonus has been removed (this is compensated for by the larger reduction in Allied pilot experience).
* The durability values of all fighter aircraft, including float fighters, night fighters and fighter-bombers are increased by 60%.
* The durability values of all other aircraft are increased by 40%.
* The effect rating of all AA/DP weapons has been increased by 30%.
* The maximum speed value range has been compressed by halving the difference between actual aircraft max speed and a centre point of 350 MPH.
* The accuracy of all air launched torpedoes - Japanese and Allied - has been reduced by 25% (ship and sub launched torpedo accuracy is unchanged).


This variant is UNTESTED and EXPERIMENTAL. Use at your own risk! This variant may also change, depending on the success, or otherwise, of these modifications.

Now with this said, I think it is safe to say that the losses suffered by both sides in this game have been a lot higher than what other games may have and might not be a good measuring stick as to whether or not the A2A model is broken in this mod. It is also unfair to judge it based on one result.

It isn't even a year into the war and he's lost almost 7,000 aircraft to my 4200. If you notice my B-24D A2A losses, it is over 50% of the total losses for this aircraft type. These losses have mostly occurred on long distance, unescorted strikes.

I believe a lot of the Japanese losses that have happened could have been avoided from my observations. My opponent is overly aggressive and it has cost him on a number of occasions.

ORIGINAL: Terminus




That's actually fully realistic. Stop complaining...

You don't even know the scenario you're playing, and you're still whining about a broken game? Sheesh!

My dear high Command , how dare you form a opinion about the game and even worse complain , that just brings out the big guns , silly silly

Perhaps I missed it, but what was the wx and altitude during the bombing run? I assume this was a daytime action.

ORIGINAL: High Command

It is not, when attacking a Bomber Group with a Modern Figher, you dont loose as many fighters as Bombers.
I have now checked 126 (still looking) Air Operations and not found any, who has evan close to that results.
I have arround 200 more operations to read throu, i will know more in a few hours, but of the 126 i have red throu so far, not a singel one is evan close to a 1 Fighter for 1 Bomber ratio.

My Fraind recommended me to post here, i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.

Anyway, if you do have any knowlage of this it would be appriciated to here your oppinion,
Is this caused by the game or the mod?

You are not used to posting as if you were actually face to face with the people you are addressing.
It might be well for you to be civil, and not act so arrogant, if you want help on this forum.
We can all learn from one another, but your foot in the door should not have poop on it.

My Fraind recommended me to post here, i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.

watch out mate , they might bring out the real big guns to counter you, el cid could be wheeled out here

ORIGINAL: OSO
This variant is UNTESTED and EXPERIMENTAL. Use at your own risk! This variant may also change, depending on the success, or otherwise, of these modifications.

Exactly why you should read the disclaimers first...

I'll stick to the standard CHS, thankyou. [;)]

watch out mate , they might bring out the real big guns to counter you, el cid could be wheeled out here

Now YOU DO show some signs of bitterness and resentment, don't you [8|]

High Command started the conversation in a very inadequate fashion. He hid the real facts for a start, and couldn't stick with an educated behavior when it came to address us - if he's got some problem with the way Terminus is dealing with him, he can tell him without involving the whole forum crowd. Thanks to Mac and other people around here for keeping cool and so civil.
But btw I believe we don't need another troll, James... If you feel like you are so bored in your real life that you need to look for trouble over those boards with people you barely know, please look for another community to slander, thanks... [:o]