4E bombing accuracy

[hades1001]

Me and my friend are using some WITP HR while playing AE.

One of HR is that restrict the 4E bombing altitude to 20000 ft. This is OK in WITP.
But when I play allies side in AE, I feel that 4E is really ineffective in 20000ft.
Usually 60-70 4E will only achieve 15-20 hits on runway.

Is there any nerf on the 4E bombing accuracy in AE? IF there is, what's the recommended altitude that is acceptable to both Allies and Japs? Thank you.

[Patbgaming]

I don't know about any nerf's from WITP to AE. The only HR I have really seen concerning 4E's are No Naval Bombing below 10k. I usually keep my 4E between 10k-15k with no complaints.

[bradfordkay]

I find that 4E bombing results seem to fall within historical reasonableness when the aircraft are flying in the 10,000'+ range. 

[crsutton]

I bomb at 7-9000 feet for maximum effect. Japanese bombers are also very effective at these heights so I can't see where it would matter to have a HR restricting one side and not the other.

[Saros]

I think most of the 'small' AA guns like Bofors and the Japanese equivalent max out at just under 10K. Going under 10K seems to greatly increase losses to AA and Ops although with 4EB's they are tough enough it isn't as bad as with the more fragile Japanese bombers.

[Barb]

Japanese 25mm AA gun has ceiling 7000 in game. 40mm Bofors has 9000 - As japanese I never bombed below this altitude if I know that flak is present. Why? losing 2-3 planes to flak each turn in addition to ops loses isnt worth it [:)]

[dr.hal]

To avoid 7K flak do you need to go to 8K? Or will 7K do it. Also I thought bombing accuracy was impacted by an altitude band width, low altitude being 0-5K, next being 6K to 10K, etc. Is it the case that bombing accuracy changes with each level of altitude? I find this difficult to believe. Thanks in advance for responding. Hal

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

To avoid 7K flak do you need to go to 8K? Or will 7K do it. Also I thought bombing accuracy was impacted by an altitude band width, low altitude being 0-5K, next being 6K to 10K, etc. Is it the case that bombing accuracy changes with each level of altitude? I find this difficult to believe. Thanks in advance for responding. Hal

IIRC, there is a thread in the modders sub-forum which deals with the accuracy of flak guns and their in game effectiveness at the edge of their rated range. Looks like I'll now have to go and dig it up because it involved some smart cookies, who also happened to be developers.[;)]

In simple terms, if the flak limit is 7k you need to go in at 8k to avoid it. One point to bear in mind is that much flak altitude limits is measured in hundred feet increments whereas aircraft assigned altitudes is measured in thousand feet increments.

Altitude does affect bombing accuracy but not quite in the manner you posited. The type of pilot training and air mission flown is determined by the assigned altitude. Hence if you want your dive bombers to actually dive bomb, the units assigned altitude must fall within the range of 10-14k feet. Assign them to 9k feet or less they glide bomb, assign them to 15k feet or higher they level bomb. Naturally the level of accuracy and effectiveness will then be reflective of whether the unit dive/glide/level bombed. Other plane types face similar issues albeit at different "altitude bands", such as the difference between skip and level bombing.

The higher a bomber flies the less accurate and effective the delivery will be. This is based on incremental 1k foot steps, not based on moving from one perceived (but non existent) altitude band. However to balance against this loss of accuracy and effectiveness one must factor reduced disruption from lack of flak, and of course fewer aircraft operational losses from damaged bombers failing to return back to base. Like everything, it is a trade off.

Alfred

[dr.hal]

It's rather funny Alfred the way we "assume" things.... I could have sworn altitude impact for flak would have been in bands, but given that the max altitude is given in 100s of feet, then it makes sense. I guess the band widths are only use in two calculations, one being the bombing type (glide v. divebomb) and the other in agility of the A/C when it comes to a dog fight. Is that about it?

[Alfred]

Correct, plus pilot training.

The altitude maneouvre band rating apply only to fighters in dog fighting. But as always there is more to it than just manoeuvre rating, maximum speed and rate of climb are at least as important. Bombers make no use of maneouvre ratings in air-to-air combat.

Pilot training is dependent on assigned altitude. A fighter pilot training at 15k' on either "Escort" or "Sweep" mission will improve their air skill (and experience + defense) even though the player may have selected the "Sweep" mission with an eye towards improving the straffing skill. If you specifically wanted him to improve his straffing skill he has to be undergoing "Sweep" training at 100 feet.

Then there is the issue of certain hard coded determinations. Irrespective of the assigned altitude, air torpedoes are delivered at 200'. If you assign the plane to fly at 5k rather than 1k it will sidestep some of the flak but it's ultimate delivery run is hard coded to come in at 200 feet when even cans of Spam can be thrown at the plane.[:)]

Alfred

[dr.hal]

Another hard coded item is fighter escorts, always 2K above the group they escort IIRC.

[AW1Steve]

In a recent PBEM I tried using several squadrons of B-24's to attack my opponents CV's. Despite many,many attacks at 1,000' , not one scored an attack. 2 Squadrons of Ventura/Harpoons did score, four times. I've tried many attacks against the AI , and almost never got a hit. I suspect that I need to use crews with experince in the high 80's. While USN PB2Y's and 4Y's were deadly, I've always found USAAF planes to be useless. Just my experince, just my 2cents. [:)]

[topeverest]

Not for me, but certainly, that is what house rules are for. If it gets under your skin and your opponent aggrees...

Dont you have to be an AB to use a full combat load commensurate with range when attacking below 6K.

I personally have no issues with using LBA however the player chooses to train them. Key word there is training, bacuase the allied player has to consume two to four months of training per pilot, depending on how it is done and to what level. by mid war, an allied player that trains suffient naval attack pilots, be they assigned to any combination of TB, DB, 2E-LB, or 4E-LB owns the skies over the oceans where they choose to do so subject to range of applicable bases. The real value is that the 24 can strike up to 24 hexes, which barely overmatches the empire LBA capabilities from a distance perspective (until the empire cant do it effectively anymore of course). That is an extra 9 or so hex range over the allied MB's. I don't know of any game where a player has massed 29's for use in anti naval operations, so the "issue" seems to be concentrated on the 24 in stock and the potential swing power of that extra 9 hex range between summer of 42 and summer of 43, when a player may want to assign more of an advantage to the empire cause.

The "early" 4E's are awesome weapons no matter how they are used. Is it any less damaging to fly in 75 or 100 and KO a large empire base in a single stab and / or methodically obliterate any empire LBA presence in an area and / or smash a land force to such high disruption a force a third its size sweeps the field and / or take out critical booty locations despite heavy CAP allocation?

The weapons are the weapons...

[AW1Steve]

I'm not saying that 4 engine low level attacks aren't devastating......I can't say one way or another as I can't seem to duplicate them. Any help anyone can give me in this research would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to experince it and see it for myself, and apparently I'm doing something wrong. Instead of vengeful eagles from the sky , I keep getting "nibbling ducks". [&:]

In Vanilla WITP I saw such attacks as being VERY effective.[X(] In AE , it doesn't seem to be worth the allies time or effort. So please, tell me what I'm doing wrong. Thanks.[&o] [:)]

[Nemo121]

I find that 20,000 feet for 4-Engines during the daytime and 15,000 feet during the night-time yields relatively reasonable results but only when the bombs are modelled as sticks of 4 bombs. If they aren't modelled as sticks then for strategic bombing results to be believable you need to go to 25,000 feet in the daytime and 20,000 at night-time.

That is because of the way the game rolls for each of the many bombs which the bomber may drop individually. Eventually when you have 12 or 16 bombs dropped per bomber even small hit %s add up to produce the certainty of many, many hits. COmbine that with the way HI etc is modelled and you end up with an over-effectiveness vs HI, LI etc etc.

If you send them in at 100 feet vs no FlAK then even if their Low Ground skill is very low the altitude will guarantee lots of hits.


As to flying the whole thing at 100 feet. I've always thought the assigned altitude just represented the altitude for the ingress to the target area and the attack. It doesn't represent the altitude they fly at the whole trip. This altitude is an abstraction and it must be looked at that way.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I find that 20,000 feet for 4-Engines during the daytime and 15,000 feet during the night-time yields relatively reasonable results but only when the bombs are modelled as sticks of 4 bombs. If they aren't modelled as sticks then for strategic bombing results to be believable you need to go to 25,000 feet in the daytime and 20,000 at night-time.

That is because of the way the game rolls for each of the many bombs which the bomber may drop individually. Eventually when you have 12 or 16 bombs dropped per bomber even small hit %s add up to produce the certainty of many, many hits. COmbine that with the way HI etc is modelled and you end up with an over-effectiveness vs HI, LI etc etc.

If you send them in at 100 feet vs no FlAK then even if their Low Ground skill is very low the altitude will guarantee lots of hits.


As to flying the whole thing at 100 feet. I've always thought the assigned altitude just represented the altitude for the ingress to the target area and the attack. It doesn't represent the altitude they fly at the whole trip. This altitude is an abstraction and it must be looked at that way.

Are you referring to land or sea attacks? Or both? (I mean the lowlevel attacks).

[&:]

[Nemo121]

Both

[AW1Steve]

Thank you. [&o] I hope the game also models the very high OP loss that would ensue. [:)]

[PaxMondo]

Just read PzB's/Andy's AAR. There have been allied 4E bomb hit rates of +60% several times at altitudes of +10,000 ft.

[topeverest]

SO , IIRC, as 2E or 4E bomber, if it hits a naval target, it does not calculate remaining bombs. So cant get more than one hit per bomber. Is that correct?

I also thought there was a limitation on the number of the compliment of bombs that could be involved in the attack. Is that so?