Matrix Games Forums

Why were Sonias, Marys and Anns changed to LevelBomber role in AE?
Stripped me off LBA dive bombers and some things just make no sense.
Sonia wich looks almost like Stuka, and we all know that Stuka was natural-born diver, is some crappy ligh level bomber in AE, why change it from DB?
As a DB they had some use, light bombers in AE are just plain crap. Sonia had short leg in stock too, but you could still capture places like Jolo and put Sonias on it, they would cover route to Manila/Bataan just fine (sometimes really sloughtering merchant ships TFs).
Ida was short legged recon in stock in AE its complete uselles light bomber crap.

Anyway, turn after turn they do no damage at all (at least you cant see any damage done):

Morning Air attack on 58th Chinese Corps, at 85,53 (Kiukiang)

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-36 Ida x 25



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

Morning Air attack on 72nd Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-51 Sonia x 9



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...

Morning Air attack on 72nd Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-36 Ida x 25



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...


Morning Air attack on 3rd New Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-51 Sonia x 12



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 78th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ...

Morning Air attack on 3rd New Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 1
Ki-36 Ida x 25



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ...

Morning Air attack on 50th Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 6
Ki-51 Sonia x 12



No Japanese losses

YAY! DAMAGE INFLICTED!
Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 78th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ...

Morning Air attack on 72nd Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-36 Ida x 25



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ...

Anyway, is 6000 feet to high for thesee guys?

Don't go below 6000' because then you switch skill sets to LowGnd from GndB.

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Why were Sonias, Marys and Anns changed to LevelBomber role in AE?

Because they were level bombers...and not "Dive" Bombers

Stripped me off LBA dive bombers and some things just make no sense.
Sonia wich looks almost like Stuka, and we all know that Stuka was natural-born diver, is some crappy ligh level bomber in AE, why change it from DB?

Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes.

As a DB they had some use, light bombers in AE are just plain crap. Sonia had short leg in stock too, but you could still capture places like Jolo and put Sonias on it, they would cover route to Manila/Bataan just fine (sometimes really sloughtering merchant ships TFs).
Ida was short legged recon in stock in AE its complete uselles light bomber crap.

Anyway, turn after turn they do no damage at all (at least you cant see any damage done):

These types were all Army types and used against Ground troops...I imagine you are causing some disruption to the targetted units even if no casualties are inflicted.

I would replace them with Lillys and Sallys as soon as possible. They are somewhat useful as trainers, or at a forward airbase, but for the most part, they fly and carry a bomb, and that's about the only thing nice you can say.

Certainly, don't BUILD any.

Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod.

The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod.

The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything.

Any aircraft can be a dive bomber... once.

Any aircraft can be a dive bomber... once.

Funny, that is what they became[;)]

In what class the shallow close support dive is better represented?
They probably get better classified as fighter bombers.

Is the altitude setting factored into the accuracy/effectiveness of attack missions by level bombers? If so I'm guessing that the way to represent "better accuracy through shallow dives" is simply to set the altitude somewhere in the 100'-5000' range.

I think there is a bit of a problem in the way altitude for Air missions is defined. On p.154 it says this about the altitude setting: "The Current Altitude displays the altitude that the aircraft will fly at when flying to and from the target hex". On first glance this would seem reasonable since most missions are assumed to fit a fixed attack profile:

1. Level bombers are assumed to attack at the same level they fly in at.
2. The profile for a Dive bomber attack is simplified to always assume it starts from 2000'.
3. A torpedo attack always assumes a drop to low level (100'?) to perform the attack run.

Squadrons designated "dive bombers" are always assumed to perform dive attacks. Squadrons designated torpedo bombers are always assumed to perform torpedo attacks on ships if they have torpedoes. If they are carrying bombs they are treated as level bombers (correct?)

I guess the only reason you'd need to know an altitude defined by the player is to model CAP and AA interaction. For this I suppose the design decision was to model it as two interactions - one that occurs at the designated altitude that the mission flys in at for CAP and an initial AA shot, and then an additional interaction at the beginning of the fixed profiles for dive and torpedo attacks.

However, in the section about (fighter) sweeps (p. 150), it mentions that "If the group attacks at 100’, the planes will also attempt to strafe the target...". OK, so to set fighters to do a strafing attack, pick "sweep" as the mission and set the altitude to 100'? But wait - what happened to the altitude setting being the altitude it flies to/from the target at? Well I guess for fighters if you set altitude to 100' then it doesn't mean they actually flew all the way to the target nap-of-the-earth, but rather than add another control to the air mission UI, it's OK to conflate the meaning of the altitude setting in this case because... (well, I'm guessing here) because if you're putting fighters on a strafing mission then we can assume they have nothing interesting happen to them where we'd need to know what altitude they flew in at - always assume that any CAP/AA only interacts with them after they've started their strafing run and are at 100'?

Oh, something else I can't remember where I saw it (on the forum) - if the altitude setting is below 6000' on a naval attack it uses the low-level naval attack skill rather than the naval bombing skill? I vaguely recall from years ago when I first played witp that there were various discussions on the forum about how this setting would be what you use to designate skip-bombing.

So anyway, I guess my questions would be:

1. if you set a sweep-capable aircraft to sweep at 100' (strafe), what does it attack? an airfield? does this attack assume only cannons/guns are used or if bombs are carried is their effect also included?
2. if you set fighters/fighter-bombers on airfield,port,naval, or ground attack...
a) do you set their altitude to 10K' or whatever you want to designate them to fly in at (and be intercepted by CAP) and then it's implicit that to actually attack they drop to low level and perform a strafing attack?
b) or does it make the assumption of an implicit strafing attack for fighters-only and for fighter-bombers if the altitude is set high it assumes the FB makes a level-bombing attack instead?
c) or if the altitude is set too high is it just assumed that cannons etc aren't used and it is always/only a level-bombing run, and that the only way to get F/FB to use their cannons is to set the altitude to 100'?
d) or do F/FB do nothing at all on these attack missions unless they have some bombs because the only way to get them to use their cannons air-to-ground is to assign them to a sweep mission?

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod.

The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything.

Ur telling me Japs rather dived in twin-engined IIb Jillys with internal bomb bay (how do you dive bomb from internal bomb bay???) than Sonias?
Man compared to stock AE just doesnt feel right...

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod.

The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything.

Ur telling me Japs rather dived in twin-engined IIb Jillys with internal bomb bay (how do you dive bomb from internal bomb bay???) than Sonias?

You mean like the internal Bomb Bay on the SB2C Helldiver?

Man compared to stock AE just doesnt feel right...

Maybe because its more historical...[:)]

I think you just have to find the right kind of target for these planes. For example:

Morning Air attack on 108th RAF Base Force, at 54,60 (Tavoy)

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-30 Ann x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Note that this was in thunderstorms, and with just 6 planes.

In any case, the objective of this raid wasn't to inflict casualties but to harass the enemy, forcing it out of move mode, increasing disruption, etc. In other words, slow and wear it down to prevent it from fleeing.

I also use the ones with a camera as scout bombers (bomb a hex you would know more about) but I don't know if this actually works in game (i.e., if it has better chances to increases detection than a non-camera equipped aircraft).

For what it's worth, I plan to keep building these planes until I run out of engines, for all their limits I think they're still more useful as planes than as surplus engines anyway

Edit: the later lilies are dive bombers IIRC

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod.

The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything.

Ur telling me Japs rather dived in twin-engined IIb Jillys with internal bomb bay (how do you dive bomb from internal bomb bay???) than Sonias?

You mean like the internal Bomb Bay on the SB2C Helldiver?

Man compared to stock AE just doesnt feel right...

Maybe because its more historical...[:)]

Its a game.
Its suposed to feel like WWII but its not suposed to be all historical.
Because its a game [:'(]

Ki-30 Ann are the only ones I build also. They can reach 8 hex if I recall corectly and carry 250kg bomb.
Unlike Ida's bombload of 4x30 kg [8|] and shorter leg (6 hex?)...

ORIGINAL: Streptokok



Its a game.
Its suposed to feel like WWII but its not suposed to be all historical.
Because its a game [:'(]

Hey that's why there is an editor...you want Stukas in the Pacific ...have at it.

For those of us who want close to historical, there's little need to edit.

Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes.

Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber.

Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) .

Wirraways got reclassified as light bombers so now Australia doesn't have a single fighter aircraft.

So its not all bad for the Jap-lovers, is it.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Wirraways got reclassified as light bombers so now Australia doesn't have a single fighter aircraft.

So its not all bad for the Jap-lovers, is it.

But the Wirraway CA-16 had dive breaks ....According to this it should at least be a dive bomber What about the Boomerang ?

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes.

Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber.

Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) .

I would want to see a Sonia diving the way a Stuka dived. Guess it would come down in several pieces...

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Wirraways got reclassified as light bombers so now Australia doesn't have a single fighter aircraft.

So its not all bad for the Jap-lovers, is it.

If we should ever play together, you can have 1000 Wirraway fighters. Even the Nate is an air-superiority fighter against that thing...