Bombers breaking off and morale loss

[Yaab]

Here is something I have just noticed today - a strange morale drop for an Allied B-17 unit that broke off its attack due to fighter opposition

Morning Air attack on Canton , at 77,59

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 12

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 6

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

There were two units in the attack (4 x B-17s, 2 x B-17s). The latter disengaged after few fire exchanges with the Nates.

As the Allied player, I suffered no damaged planes, no operational loss and no pilot loss in this attack, yet the morale in the unit that had broken off the engagement plummeted from 49 prior to the raid to just 35 on the following day.

Nervous breakdown perhaps?

[obvert]

Probably because you made them fly when they were already in a perilously low morale situation. [:)]

Anything less than 80 and you should let them rest. I don't usually fly much if they're lees than 90.

[LoBaron]

Are you sure there was no damage to the bombers?

[Gaspote]

You should keep them over 60 or get an escort. Don't know why they fly with a so low morale, very aggressive leader ?

[Feltan]

Harummmph.....

Any B-17 crew that has "moral issues" after engagement with some Ki-27B Nate fighters needs to go to the hospital and get an injection of: "Time to be a man."

Regards,
Feltan

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Harummmph.....

Any B-17 crew that has "moral issues" after engagement with some Ki-27B Nate fighters needs to go to the hospital and get an injection of: "Time to be a man."

Regards,
Feltan

Have you looked at the defensive armament of a B-17D? [:D]

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Are you sure there was no damage to the bombers?

OK,I have reexamined the whole thing.

It seems the morale drop was actually experienced by the group who pressed the attack home. The group that broke off the engagement suffered no morale loss. The breakaway group was a more experienced one. The "green" group kept on attacking in spite of the presence of 12 Nates on CAP.

Now, there were messages (marked with the "*" sign) during the combat animation saying that the B-17s were getting damaged by Nates, yet combat report lists not a single B-17 damaged. This probably was due to fog of war in the combat report itself or the fact that the accrued damage from Nates' 7.7mm machine guns was not enough to warrant an "aircraft damaged" message in the combat report.

The groups arrived to their home base suffering no operational losses and no pilot losses. Yet, on the next day, two B-17s from the demoralised group were hauled for repair.

So yes, there was damage dealt to the B-17s during the combat, this damage was not reported by the combat report either due to FOW or some kind of damage threshold, some aircraft were put hauled for repair, and the inexperienced group suffered morale problems.

Leaders in both groups were hand picked and they were among some of the best Allied air leaders available.

I do not understand why the morale dropped. The group pressed the attack, it suffered no losses in terms of planes and pilots. The pilots didn't hit the intended target due to heavy CAP and bad weather, so what is the reason for all this demoralisation?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Are you sure there was no damage to the bombers?

OK,I have reexamined the whole thing.

It seems the morale drop was actually experienced by the group who pressed the attack home. The group that broke off the engagement suffered no morale loss. The breakaway group was a more experienced one. The "green" group kept on attacking in spite of the presence of 12 Nates on CAP.

Now, there were messages (marked with the "*" sign) during the combat animation saying that the B-17s were getting damaged by Nates, yet combat report lists not a single B-17 damaged. This probably was due to fog of war in the combat report itself or the fact that the accrued damage from Nates' 7.7mm machine guns was not enough to warrant an "aircraft damaged" message in the combat report.

The groups arrived to their home base suffering no operational losses and no pilot losses. Yet, on the next day, two B-17s from the demoralised group were hauled for repair.

So yes, there was damage dealt to the B-17s during the combat, this damage was not reported by the combat report either due to FOW or some kind of damage threshold, some aircraft were put hauled for repair, and the inexperienced group suffered morale problems.

Leaders in both groups were hand picked and they were among some of the best Allied air leaders available.

I do not understand why the morale dropped. The group pressed the attack, it suffered no losses in terms of planes and pilots. The pilots didn't hit the intended target due to heavy CAP and bad weather, so what is the reason for all this demoralisation?

What you describe is the reason why I asked you to reconfirm the "no damage to bombers", and I can explain it.

Under certain conditions damaged planes do not register in the combat report. To my best knowledge the following conditions have to be met:

a) the damage dealt is solely from A2A combat (not due to AA)
b) no plane is shot down in the process

So, this is not due to FOW or a certain damage threshold, but due to some small glitch in the CR generation. I think it is a known minor issue, or a known limitation of the game engine.
(It has been there since the days of UV).

As for your question: pilots of planes receiving damage experience a morale drop, also fatigue accumulated in combat results in a morale drop. Those factors suffice as explanation.

[Yaab]

LoBaron, thanks for the explanation. I guess you are right.There was no Japanese AA fire during this combat, but rather a prolonged exchange of fire between the B-17s and the Nates, as if the fighters made several firing passes against the bombers.

It may be useful to review heavy bomber groups after such "uneventful" missions in the future. I was eager to send the bombers again on the next day since they have suffered no losses when I noticed this morale drop. Wow, this game is detailed.

[Yaab]

BTW, if I had been the Japanese side in this combat I would have been somewhat disappointed.

On one hand, my Nates damaged the bombers during combat animation, one bomber group was forced to break off, and no bombs were dropped (though I was helped by severe storms in this respect). On the other hand, the combat report makes no mention of any damaged Allied planes and the morale drop is not visible to me either. Yet in reality, the Allies had to put two bombers for a lengthy repair and the pilots had to be rested for several days to regain morale.

Obviously, one need to look beyond combat animations and combat reports for a better assessment of his CAP performance.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

BTW, if I had been the Japanese side in this combat I would have been somewhat disappointed.

On one hand, my Nates damaged the bombers during combat animation, one bomber group was forced to break off, and no bombs were dropped (though I was helped by severe storms in this respect). On the other hand, the combat report makes no mention of any damaged Allied planes and the morale drop is not visible to me either. Yet in reality, the Allies had to put two bombers for a lengthy repair and the pilots had to be rested for several days to regain morale.

Obviously, one need to look beyond combat animations and combat reports for a better assessment of his CAP performance.

As a Japanese player anytime I can force B-17s to turn around or miss their targets with no losses on my side is a victory. I would love to damage some B-17s or shoot some down, but in reality that ain't ever going to happen with Nates. I would be happy at no losses on my side knowing the enemy planes probably suffered damage / aircraft/pilot fatigue or pilot moral loss forcing them to wait a day or two until they can attack again.