Hi
Here is the poll asked by Joel. As he said "I don't usually like design by polling, but I'm interested in getting some quantifiable feedback on this issue. I need to say up front that there is no guarantee that we will do anything here as our group may have a different opinion than the poll even after seeing the poll results. But with this in mind, I suggest someone make up a poll that asks whether we should do one of the following in a future patch"
How to correct the over effective low level bombing
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
You forgot:
None of the above. I don't have a solution but maybe someone more educated on heavy bombers and their ability to hit manueving ships at high speed can? Flak values seem fine as is.
IMO
IMO
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
Re: You forgot:
Does someone know the formula for the Flak.Maybe this would help to figure out a solution.
Pwrsonally i would say, the larger and the less maneuverability the incoming target(plane) the more often it is hit. With b17s you can attack safely every TF at 100 or 1000ft without fearing to loose to many.
Pwrsonally i would say, the larger and the less maneuverability the incoming target(plane) the more often it is hit. With b17s you can attack safely every TF at 100 or 1000ft without fearing to loose to many.
The issue isn't flak effectiveness or bomber accuracy. It's CAP. If a handful of Hudsons, B17s, or Betties is making it unscathed through a score of fighters on CAP, the model is broken.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
I agree 100% and was trying to say the same thing. ALso, presence of interceptors/density of AA fire should decrease chances as well.Originally posted by Spooky
IMO, flak is not the problem. I would rather decrease the efficiency of the low altitude bombing ...
ie : all other factors similar - 1,000' bombing should be 50-75% more effective than 6,000' bombing rather than 200-300% as it seems to be now ...
Spooky
-
Basement Command
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Boise, ID
I'm not going to vote in the poll - at least not yet, but I have a question. As I recall US bombers (Mostly B25s?) were outfitted with multiple forward facing 50 cal MGs that were pretty effective in interdicting lightly armored Japanese shipping. Is this modeled anywhere? If not, does this balance to a degree the effectiveness of low level bombing?... Or was all that refitting of US bombers later in the war than is represented by UV. If so, what accomodatins for this are planned for WITP?
The only skills I have the patience to learn are those that have no practical application in real life.
If UV were designed by Polls, here's what we would get :
1. Every pilot would be an ace.
2. Every player could add their name to the pilot database. Along with those of their friends.
3. Zeros would automatically shoot down everything that's not a Zero.
4. Every Japanese bomber would be a kamikaze.
5. Every carrier engagement would be like Midway, but with Go-Go girls on the flight decks during the strike launch.
6. PT 109 would be "presidential".
7. PT 76 (McHale's Navy) would be a floating disaster for both sides.
8. There would be embedded MPEGs of USO Dancing girls, and broadcasts by Tokyo Rose.
9. There would have to be a bridge somewhere that needed to be built by captured Brits and Americans.
10. Instead of the sound of an aircraft we would hear during a Japanese plane attack, we would hear "Tora, Tora, Toya!!!"
1. Every pilot would be an ace.
2. Every player could add their name to the pilot database. Along with those of their friends.
3. Zeros would automatically shoot down everything that's not a Zero.
4. Every Japanese bomber would be a kamikaze.
5. Every carrier engagement would be like Midway, but with Go-Go girls on the flight decks during the strike launch.
6. PT 109 would be "presidential".
7. PT 76 (McHale's Navy) would be a floating disaster for both sides.
8. There would be embedded MPEGs of USO Dancing girls, and broadcasts by Tokyo Rose.
9. There would have to be a bridge somewhere that needed to be built by captured Brits and Americans.
10. Instead of the sound of an aircraft we would hear during a Japanese plane attack, we would hear "Tora, Tora, Toya!!!"
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. 
Planes attacking at 100 feet will "strafe". For Marauders and so forth, that have 6 forward firing 50 cals, this would indeed be devastating to a lightly armored ship. In fact, destroyers and other types of small lightly armed ships could even be blown up by a sustained burst in the right place. However, in the game, about the only thing that can possibly be sunk by strafing, regardless of the plane type, is a barge. And only if you are somewhat lucky.Originally posted by Basement Command
I'm not going to vote in the poll - at least not yet, but I have a question. As I recall US bombers (Mostly B25s?) were outfitted with multiple forward facing 50 cal MGs that were pretty effective in interdicting lightly armored Japanese shipping. Is this modeled anywhere? If not, does this balance to a degree the effectiveness of low level bombing?... Or was all that refitting of US bombers later in the war than is represented by UV. If so, what accomodatins for this are planned for WITP?
And yes, the weapon system loadout does migrate during the game, with plane versions : B-26B becomes the B-26G, or whatever, etc.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
Quote
" Planes attacking at 100 feet will "strafe". For Marauders and so forth, that have 6 forward firing 50 cals, this would indeed be devastating to a lightly armored ship"
This game starts in May 1942. The numerous forward firing MGs that you mentined were installed after a certain date (don't know off hand).
And logic says they were not installed in every aircraft on the same day.
They were installed to counter the AA coming from transports that were the target of the raid.
" Planes attacking at 100 feet will "strafe". For Marauders and so forth, that have 6 forward firing 50 cals, this would indeed be devastating to a lightly armored ship"
This game starts in May 1942. The numerous forward firing MGs that you mentined were installed after a certain date (don't know off hand).
And logic says they were not installed in every aircraft on the same day.
They were installed to counter the AA coming from transports that were the target of the raid.
Interesting that some players use bombers and are unable to hit any ground units. And yet this poll is “how to reduce the effectiveness of low level bombers”
The obvious answer is to have effective ground flak.
But as for air defense, I would have thought that if, for example, 10 fighters were flying escort, the defenders might throw in perhaps 15 or 20 fighters against them. It is possible that there are no losses on either side but the defenders have held up the escorts which was always the idea.
Any remaining defending fighters go after the bombers. If the remaining fighters were in great numbers then quite a few bombers would be lost. But again it is possible that none are lost but plenty are damaged. In this case any bombs dropped would be very inaccurate.
But the results we are seeing are nothing like this.
I think perhaps some players are sending hundreds of aircraft on one mission. The game designers assumed we wargamers would play historical type air missions and so the system is not handling the a-historical air missions.
The obvious answer is to have effective ground flak.
But as for air defense, I would have thought that if, for example, 10 fighters were flying escort, the defenders might throw in perhaps 15 or 20 fighters against them. It is possible that there are no losses on either side but the defenders have held up the escorts which was always the idea.
Any remaining defending fighters go after the bombers. If the remaining fighters were in great numbers then quite a few bombers would be lost. But again it is possible that none are lost but plenty are damaged. In this case any bombs dropped would be very inaccurate.
But the results we are seeing are nothing like this.
I think perhaps some players are sending hundreds of aircraft on one mission. The game designers assumed we wargamers would play historical type air missions and so the system is not handling the a-historical air missions.
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Experience levels of LBA pilots
Ever check out these puppies? I've got boys that fly boxcars with 99 experience.!!!Hmmm,,,It's amazing to see pilots with high 90's in AAF vs specialist USN flyers. Just an observation.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Wait Until Bugs Are Fixed?
Since there seem to still be a couple of nasty bugs regarding strafing, might this be having unexpected effects with low level bombers? Just a cautious thought.
Personally, I haven't seen much of a problem but I haven't used B-17's that aggressively. They don't start showing up in the replacement pool until around September and operational losses cause me to hold them for only critical targets.
I have no problem with flak being made slightly more lethal as long as it's just a very slight tweak.
I would also agree that the surprising ability that 3 Betty's have to regularly sneak in and get hits on my Allied CV's is much more of a problem. Especially when they ALL get hits.
I am a little concerned that this desire to "tone down" the B-17's is a continuance of a (probably subconscious) trend that I've perceived to "help out" the Japanese side. Scenario design and replacement levels should be the preferred methods of balancing play IMHO.
Thank You,
Marty K
Personally, I haven't seen much of a problem but I haven't used B-17's that aggressively. They don't start showing up in the replacement pool until around September and operational losses cause me to hold them for only critical targets.
I have no problem with flak being made slightly more lethal as long as it's just a very slight tweak.
I would also agree that the surprising ability that 3 Betty's have to regularly sneak in and get hits on my Allied CV's is much more of a problem. Especially when they ALL get hits.
I am a little concerned that this desire to "tone down" the B-17's is a continuance of a (probably subconscious) trend that I've perceived to "help out" the Japanese side. Scenario design and replacement levels should be the preferred methods of balancing play IMHO.
Thank You,
Marty K
Cap isn't broken
I am not sure what to think about B17 and Flak. I think the test J7B is running are interesting and show the problem is a bit worse than I perceived. However, I notice a lot of people complaining about CAP which I am reasonably sure isn't broken.
In my experience, playing PBEM and both sides. CAP is working pretty much as intended. In situation where the bombers are lightly escorted and face fresh pilots with low fatigue and good morale the bombers get slaughtered especially fragile Betty's and Nells and carrier planes. (Obviously B17,B24 work differently)
The only time I see a situation where 4 Betty's slip past 40+ CAP fighters and put a couple of Torps in a carrier or transport is when the CAP has been fighting a lot for the day.
A very typical situation is a 2 CV TF is flying CAP for an transport fleet, over and a day goes like this. Say CAP starts out as 50 Wildcats with high morale and Fatigue around 20. There are 2 Jap airbase within range.
Morning.
6 unescorted bombers attack. CAP cuts them down and they turn back
Large escorted strike attacks carrier fleet. Lots of fighting. A hit is scored
small lightly escorted (e.g. 5 Zero's 15 Vals) attacks transport fleet. CAP damages and destroys couple of bombers, bombers get a couple hits on transports.
Afternoon.
Another strike from Rabaul. CAP is less effective . Both carriers take one Torp each.
4 Betty's attack. 35 F4F CAP do nothing, Betty's score 2 more torps, CV is in danger of sinking US players scream in disgust.
I see nothing wrong with this because this was exactly when Kamikaze slip through, the Midway SDB strike happened etc. CAP pilots got tired and were out of position or made mistakes.
I think that before more complain about this I'd like to see some combat reports. That show 6 or so unescorted bombers sliping by a CAP of 40 to 50 planes on the first air raid of the day and scoring hits, and the morale and fatigue of the pilots.
In my experience, playing PBEM and both sides. CAP is working pretty much as intended. In situation where the bombers are lightly escorted and face fresh pilots with low fatigue and good morale the bombers get slaughtered especially fragile Betty's and Nells and carrier planes. (Obviously B17,B24 work differently)
The only time I see a situation where 4 Betty's slip past 40+ CAP fighters and put a couple of Torps in a carrier or transport is when the CAP has been fighting a lot for the day.
A very typical situation is a 2 CV TF is flying CAP for an transport fleet, over and a day goes like this. Say CAP starts out as 50 Wildcats with high morale and Fatigue around 20. There are 2 Jap airbase within range.
Morning.
6 unescorted bombers attack. CAP cuts them down and they turn back
Large escorted strike attacks carrier fleet. Lots of fighting. A hit is scored
small lightly escorted (e.g. 5 Zero's 15 Vals) attacks transport fleet. CAP damages and destroys couple of bombers, bombers get a couple hits on transports.
Afternoon.
Another strike from Rabaul. CAP is less effective . Both carriers take one Torp each.
4 Betty's attack. 35 F4F CAP do nothing, Betty's score 2 more torps, CV is in danger of sinking US players scream in disgust.
I see nothing wrong with this because this was exactly when Kamikaze slip through, the Midway SDB strike happened etc. CAP pilots got tired and were out of position or made mistakes.
I think that before more complain about this I'd like to see some combat reports. That show 6 or so unescorted bombers sliping by a CAP of 40 to 50 planes on the first air raid of the day and scoring hits, and the morale and fatigue of the pilots.
Re: CAP isn't broken
Strollen,
I'm glad to hear that CAP is working for you. It is possible though that it's not for others. It's not been a serious issue for me but extremely small unescorted raids succeed more frequently than I would expect statistically. My comment was simply acknowledgeing what some others feel strongly about and have posted on this issue.
I'm glad to hear that CAP is working for you. It is possible though that it's not for others. It's not been a serious issue for me but extremely small unescorted raids succeed more frequently than I would expect statistically. My comment was simply acknowledgeing what some others feel strongly about and have posted on this issue.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
zed and spooky, you're right on it. While Bettys and (within torpedo-carrying-range) Nells were nasty dangerous and perform in the game probably about as they ought (although I suspect that torpedo-carrying Nellies are a lot better than they should be, but who am I to judge?), when I play the Allies, I am often embarrassed by (but grateful for) the sinking tonnage yielded by B-25s, and absolutely gleeful over the little black explosions and deck- or belt armor-hits provided by such historically inept craft as the A-20, Hudson, and land-based SBDs (that is, A-24s). They absolutely 
me off when I play the IJN.
Grigsby had it under control in the good old days, remember? In Carrier Force, the Midway planes couldn't hit their behinds with both hands, their girlfriends' hands, and Madame Tussaud's wax hands. Ought to be the same way here, methinks....
--------
I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.
me off when I play the IJN.Grigsby had it under control in the good old days, remember? In Carrier Force, the Midway planes couldn't hit their behinds with both hands, their girlfriends' hands, and Madame Tussaud's wax hands. Ought to be the same way here, methinks....
--------
I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Fair enough and really wasn't singling you out the B17 thread has plenty of others who were far more vociforous in their complaints.
But what are your and others expectation of how often small (<10) bombers with escort by 3 or less should be able to get through a cap of >30 fighters and score hits on a TF?
How much of an impact should the number of attacks the CAP has fought that day effect the result?
What effects should CAP fatigue, and morale have?
Having defined you expectations. What are the statistics from the games you played.
Now I actually don't expect anybody (other the J7B
) to have collected that information.
However, I do think it is reasonable for people prior to complaining about something to at make an effort to at least set an expection. That way we can argue if the expectation are reasonable. So for example it is unreasonable to expect that B17 Squadron should only hit there targets 10%, even though this probably close to what happened in the war. The reason is than when used in low level attacks B17 where actually far more effective.
So for me I expect that fresh CAP to cause unacceptable losses to small raids 90% of the time and CAP which has fought 2 or more battles in the day the number should drop to between say 60%. Since there are plenty of examples of small number of planes (heck even Catalina) achieving surprise and scoring hits, because people let there guard down after beating back a couple of attacks.
I suspect that people are naturally remembered the exceptions, when the small raid hit the Carrier/transport but forgetting all the cases where the raid was shot down or aborted.
The AI designer for CIVIII (great AI BTW) said that he got tired of all the play tester complaining about the the computer cheated in battle. So he changed it to give the human a significant advantage.
The result all of the play testers said great now the combat system is fair
But what are your and others expectation of how often small (<10) bombers with escort by 3 or less should be able to get through a cap of >30 fighters and score hits on a TF?
How much of an impact should the number of attacks the CAP has fought that day effect the result?
What effects should CAP fatigue, and morale have?
Having defined you expectations. What are the statistics from the games you played.
Now I actually don't expect anybody (other the J7B
) to have collected that information. However, I do think it is reasonable for people prior to complaining about something to at make an effort to at least set an expection. That way we can argue if the expectation are reasonable. So for example it is unreasonable to expect that B17 Squadron should only hit there targets 10%, even though this probably close to what happened in the war. The reason is than when used in low level attacks B17 where actually far more effective.
So for me I expect that fresh CAP to cause unacceptable losses to small raids 90% of the time and CAP which has fought 2 or more battles in the day the number should drop to between say 60%. Since there are plenty of examples of small number of planes (heck even Catalina) achieving surprise and scoring hits, because people let there guard down after beating back a couple of attacks.
I suspect that people are naturally remembered the exceptions, when the small raid hit the Carrier/transport but forgetting all the cases where the raid was shot down or aborted.
The AI designer for CIVIII (great AI BTW) said that he got tired of all the play tester complaining about the the computer cheated in battle. So he changed it to give the human a significant advantage.
The result all of the play testers said great now the combat system is fair
Hypothetically : Lets say you design the "Perfect Wargame" where every possible variable is not only there but correct, where historical moves always garner historical results, etc.
Guess what? If this "Perfect Wargame" were about the same topic as UV, you would have people complaining that low altitude ship attacks are "too effective" -- precisely because they could have been used more effectively during the war, but weren't. Its like hindsight.
And, no, I don't agree that the solution is to tweak the Perfect Wargame so that historical play does NOT give historical results simply because the players are playing with "historical hindsight". The solution is new tactics to deal with the tactical situation presented.
Guess what? If this "Perfect Wargame" were about the same topic as UV, you would have people complaining that low altitude ship attacks are "too effective" -- precisely because they could have been used more effectively during the war, but weren't. Its like hindsight.
And, no, I don't agree that the solution is to tweak the Perfect Wargame so that historical play does NOT give historical results simply because the players are playing with "historical hindsight". The solution is new tactics to deal with the tactical situation presented.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
Quote by Strollen
That seems perfectly reasonable to me as well. Again, I don't have anything even approaching a serious problem with this but it did happen to me 3 or 4 times in just a few days. The situation was always overwhelming CAP versus 3-6 bombers and they always got hits. It could be that for whatever reason the formula for bomber interceptions is skewed when the defenders have better than 20:1 odds. BTW, I can understand that they might not get shot down but they seem to have a 67% chance of getting hits which adds injury to insult.
This is by no means a gamebreaker for me, I just sympathize with those who are frustrated by this anomoly. Finally, if given the choice, I'd prefer to keep things exactly the way they are if the alternative was to make it impossible for tiny groups to get a hit on a ship.
So for me I expect that fresh CAP to cause unacceptable losses to small raids 90% of the time and CAP which has fought 2 or more battles in the day the number should drop to between say 60%. Since there are plenty of examples of small number of planes (heck even Catalina) achieving surprise and scoring hits, because people let there guard down after beating back a couple of attacks.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me as well. Again, I don't have anything even approaching a serious problem with this but it did happen to me 3 or 4 times in just a few days. The situation was always overwhelming CAP versus 3-6 bombers and they always got hits. It could be that for whatever reason the formula for bomber interceptions is skewed when the defenders have better than 20:1 odds. BTW, I can understand that they might not get shot down but they seem to have a 67% chance of getting hits which adds injury to insult.
This is by no means a gamebreaker for me, I just sympathize with those who are frustrated by this anomoly. Finally, if given the choice, I'd prefer to keep things exactly the way they are if the alternative was to make it impossible for tiny groups to get a hit on a ship.