Netties question

[Streptokok]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what do I need to change in database for Betty/Nells to get them to at least somewhat useful level or is it now hard coded in AE that they need to be wiped out in every engagement (perhaps a bit too much "flaming cigars sindrome")?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what do I need to change in database for Betty/Nells to get them to at least somewhat useful level or is it now hard coded in AE that they need to be wiped out in every engagement (perhaps a bit too much "flaming cigars sindrome")?

HISTORY

Unlike many Allied aircraft, no Japanese bomber or attack plane had much chance against a fighter. They all needed escort. That suggests the answer to your question is 'bring escorts'.

[Streptokok]

I do m8, they still get eaten alive no matter what I do. Is why I ask if its hard coded or can I change something like durability? to lower the ammount I loose per attack. Semi-silly question but still...
Allied bombers of any kind fly unescorted into my CAP that usualy outnumbers bombers 10:1 but I get like MAYBE 1 shot down and they drop their bombs on 80-90% of runs (rarely they get chased away).
Only things that do get shot to pieces are DB's and TB's if are unescorted, but if its 2E or 4E they get trough as if they were all farking flying fotresses wich sucks donkey balls imho as I dont really see 3-6 Hudsons doing bomb runs every turn, get engaged by 20-30 Zero/Oscar and not getting shot down.
B-17 was without any question a better plane (except in low level torpedo bombing maybe [:D] ) than Betty but hudsons were not THAT much better.

Anyway, just like to know if I can alter something in DB to get them useful enough not to keep them grounded on training, ASW or transport all the time coz current state is ridicilous.

[Mike Solli]

When you attack, send escorts with your bombers and send a sweep mission in at high level (assuming your fighters are decent at that level).  Assuming the sweep goes in first, they should work over the enemy CAP and allow your bombers to survive (some, at least).

[goran007]

Every Allied bomber had difficulty with any decent fighter flown by a decent pilot.

In war allies did bomb wherever they wanted because of air superiority and only basic tactics of Japan interceptors. That wouldn't be the case if Japan in 1944 had decent pilots and good organization and tactics (high enough air hq expirience), but that Japan could have in WITP AE

[Streptokok]

ORIGINAL: goran007
Every Allied bomber had difficulty with any decent fighter flown by a decent pilot.
In war allies did bomb wherever they wanted because of air superiority and only basic tactics of Japan interceptors. That wouldn't be the case if Japan in 1944 had decent pilots and good organization and tactics (high enough air hq expirience), but that Japan could have in WITP AE

Its January 41 and in my game allies have no air superiority atm [;)] , allied bombers fly mostly unescorted or poorly escorted.
I swept the base where AVG was "hidding" just to find noone was there. They were on LRCAP over another base [8|]
2 good sweeps over it and escort for Bettys and result is no hit on enemy ships and (before the flight the unit was full and happy [:)] ):

[Q-Ball]

One Lesson you usually learn the hard way:

Always set your Netty Max Range to match the the max range of any escort fighters in the hex. You don't want them attacking things outside of fighter escort range. What that means is that the real effective range of Netty in AE is 14 hexes, because that is the max range of the A6M2 using drop tanks.

I would never have Netty set to longer than 14 hexes in range unless you were using it for Nav Search.

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

How do you get that "bombing accuracy" percentile? I've never seen it so far, at least, my Kanoya Ku K-1 does not have it!


FWIW my losses are way lower than yours (my Kanoya Ku K-1 lost 5 planes in 2 weeks, 3 of which were lost in a single raid where they sortied without fighter escort), but I don't seem to do anything different from you. What are the fatigue levels of your fighter escorts/sweeps? Before the escort/sweep mission, I mean.

[Streptokok]

No clue. Some units have that some units dont.
I was gonna make an angry thread about that also [:)] but i gave up ( noone seems to care how angry some stuff makes people [:'(] even if you do have a reason to be).

Reason is that my Nate unit that never did a bombing run has Bombing acc. 96% while my Netties have crap like this 5%.
Even "crack" Betty units never got close to 10%.

[Streptokok]

Here it is, the crack Nate unit with nice kill/death ratio and uber bombing capability [:'(]

[GB68]

ORIGINAL: rattovolante

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

How do you get that "bombing accuracy" percentile? I've never seen it so far, at least, my Kanoya Ku K-1 does not have it!


FWIW my losses are way lower than yours (my Kanoya Ku K-1 lost 5 planes in 2 weeks, 3 of which were lost in a single raid where they sortied without fighter escort), but I don't seem to do anything different from you. What are the fatigue levels of your fighter escorts/sweeps? Before the escort/sweep mission, I mean.

Rattovolante, I've noticed this percentage as well. It seems to appear after about a months game time. It seems unusual, especially as some units have been on mostly "ground attack" for most of the time and only have a rating of 25-30%. I guess it is indicator of the units effectiveness.

As for the OP thoughts, the Bettys and Nells are shown in the game in a very historical light, but for any changes you wish to make, I'd advise increasing their durability and most importantly improving their "Gun Value".

So , better guns, tends to drive the fighters away with defensive fire. Good Luck

[StoneAge]

The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

I wanted them to intradict shipping heading for singapore but not attack Singapore (ships always spotted in port but a 30+ fighter Cap). If you put a range past Singapore to get at shipping between Singapore and Java , they attack Singapore without fighter support or drop tank range, still not a good idea.

To stop the attacks on Singapore you set the range shorter than Singapore. This then means that shipping between Singapore and Java out of range.

I think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok
noone seems to care how angry some stuff makes people ...

True, but if you want to do something in the editor to make netties tougher try increasing their durability ...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

The problem I see with the betties now is they can't be used past fighter support range.

I wanted them to intradict shipping heading for singapore but not attack Singapore (ships always spotted in port but a 30+ fighter Cap). If you put a range past Singapore to get at shipping between Singapore and Java , they attack Singapore without fighter support or drop tank range, still not a good idea.

To stop the attacks on Singapore you set the range shorter than Singapore. This then means that shipping between Singapore and Java out of range.

I think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.

HISTORY

The CW kept the shipping lane to Singapore active until the very end.

[Streptokok]

[/quote]

HISTORY

The CW kept the shipping lane to Singapore active until the very end.
[/quote]

If theres anything that pisses me off its this HISTORY posts [:)]
Im trying to play a game with alternative outcomes being atleast a posibility. Im not trying to REPLAY world war II.

And, again, it is very unhistorical and unrealistic that farking Hudsons and other 2E bombers get trough a CAP and not get themself shot down by bunch of Jap fighters.
And this happens alot in AE.

This is whats bothering me:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 51,72

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 39

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 4
Blenheim IF x 1
Hudson I x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinugawa Maru


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Blenheim I bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kota Bharu at 51,75

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 4
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 5

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3
Blenheim IV x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 17000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

If these were Netties flying at least 70% wouldnt come back from this attacks.
Unbalanced, unhistorical, unrealistic.

[Rapunzel]

Maybe your cap is flighing to low. Set your CAP at 20000 feet. Use Zeros as much as possible. Nates and Oscars are not realy good frontline fighters.

[herwin]

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

[vlcz]

think there needs to be a way of not attacking a port/base

I would like to see
Port attack to attack anything in the port - docked ships, TF and infastucture.
Navel attack then becomes anything outside of a port.

I see an interesting point here, it could be useful an option to limit operations to targets not in KNOWN enemy air superiority (I think IA calculates that each turn). Something alike the new option for TF routing by threath.

A switch in preferred targets (cargo/combat) for NAval strike would be surely wellcome as well.

[Streptokok]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

Im sorry but Im not pissed at you m8 [:)] . Even tough I sound , hmmm, harsh? or even rude? Im not trying to attack anyone or get angry at anyone. And even if it does not seem like that I can take quite alot of "forum punching" before I get into flaming wars [:D]

Major point is i wish it was more balanced game, at least in the begining of the game.
Im just not seeing this being right and playable, allied CRAP 2E bombers escaping all sort of Jap fighters (Nates, Zeros, Oscars...) while Japs get torched all the time.
Even historicaly I dont think the situtation was like this. In above example theres 39 Jap fighters vs. 8 allied planes.
Seems like an overwhelming force for planes like Blens [&:]
And I could post whole bunch of this reports with the same outcome.

Its not just Blens and hudsons I can whine about all day [:D]
When I took Miri I have put 3 fighters squads there on CAP and yet there were 3x and rarely 5x B-17 bombing my ships in harbour for about 10-15 turns.
Betties trying to do that would leave my Betty pool at 0 after 3 turns.
3x B-17 surviving 20-30 fighters 10 times in a row, sinking 5 Tk's ? Wtf? Hello?
B-17 was what it was, great plane, could take alot of punishment. But 3 of those would never live trough 10 runs against 20-30 fighters, and certanly wouldnt sink 5 ships while doing so.
B-17 and Betty uncomparable? Yes, of course B-17 is better, definitly more survivable plane than "flying cigars".

But in AE things went a bit too far in allied favor too early in the game.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

ORIGINAL: herwin

I use 'HISTORY' (and some other headers) as a politeness so people like you can tune me out. Why does my being polite piss you off?

I need to add that the CW did sustain losses running ships into Singapore--there is a memorial plaque in my home church for members who died when their ship was torpedoed in the approaches to Singapore. However, the CW was able to keep seaborne communications via the Malacca Straights operational until the end, and that suggests your problem was historical--it frustrated the Japanese in reality just like it frustrates you.

Im sorry but Im not pissed at you m8 [:)] . Even tough I sound , hmmm, harsh? or even rude? Im not trying to attack anyone or get angry at anyone. And even if it does not seem like that I can take quite alot of "forum punching" before I get into flaming wars [:D]

Major point is i wish it was more balanced game, at least in the begining of the game.
Im just not seeing this being right and playable, allied CRAP 2E bombers escaping all sort of Jap fighters (Nates, Zeros, Oscars...) while Japs get torched all the time.
Even historicaly I dont think the situtation was like this. In above example theres 39 Jap fighters vs. 8 allied planes.
Seems like an overwhelming force for planes like Blens [&:]
And I could post whole bunch of this reports with the same outcome.

Its not just Blens and hudsons I can whine about all day [:D]
When I took Miri I have put 3 fighters squads there on CAP and yet there were 3x and rarely 5x B-17 bombing my ships in harbour for about 10-15 turns.
Betties trying to do that would leave my Betty pool at 0 after 3 turns.
3x B-17 surviving 20-30 fighters 10 times in a row, sinking 5 Tk's ? Wtf? Hello?
B-17 was what it was, great plane, could take alot of punishment. But 3 of those would never live trough 10 runs against 20-30 fighters, and certanly wouldnt sink 5 ships while doing so.
B-17 and Betty uncomparable? Yes, of course B-17 is better, definitly more survivable plane than "flying cigars".

But in AE things went a bit too far in allied favor too early in the game.

why should it be "balanced"? That´s exactly what this type of game should NOT be, at least not if it tries to be as historical accurate as possible and I guess that´s what the devs tried to achive. HOI is balanced, risk and Axis and Allies too. WITP AE isn´t balanced and it shouldn´t be.