Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/14/2012 6:00:49 PM   
wga


Posts: 185
Joined: 9/29/2010
From: Sachse, Texas USA
Status: offline
Just finished our second short Uncommon Valor training game, to move onto a third before trying a WITP/WITP-AE guadacanal scenario before playing the big campaign game. As the latter will take actually years to finish, we are each testing what the actual capabilties of each sided assets are in the program.
-
Both my opponent and I new to UCV and have only played two UCV games of the early months. As the UCV and basic WITP forums are idle, I wanted to ask the active forum to see if this is considered an actual issue or just a quirk, or its a game not a simulation. In reading the WITP and WITP-AE rulebooks, I do not see a list of what changes were made if any as it applies to this top.
-
In last game, Allied B17s operationg out of Austrailia, ignored the crippled IJN CVs between PM and Australia and instead pounded the stationary IJN transports at Buna [unloading over the beach] with success. Adding it up, B17s made 63 sorties, dropped 816 bombs (assume 12x500#), achieved 14 hits with a number of sinkings, while attacking at 22000+ altitude. Bob did some research and found historically B17s/B24s sank 12 ships in 11 months. Our current discussion is are the B17s are too effective in this games; and if so per the program, what self restrictions should we propose.
-
We are presently to start the game considering the following house rules between us. B17s cannot select Naval Attack as a primary mission or Naval Attack/Port attack as a secondary mission. This is based on the assumption they are too effective in the initial small numbers, and a major threat to shipping when available in large numbers [if conserved] in 1943. The counter questions are does this tie the Allies hands too much given the inability of Allied LBA to hurt IJN CVs flying CAP. The likelihood the USN will win a ‘Midway’ result in a 4 CV vs 4 CV battle seems unlikely per the previous AAR. The trend is the USN navy is sunk and the IJN sweeps the map.
-
A separate issue is we have both found LBAs (Bettys/Nells/various Allied bombers) typically do not attack CV TF that have CAP and cannot be counted on to attack other TFs in general. They find them over and overagin during a turn but do not attack. They will more successfully in striking fixed land targets. I understand there are leadership, moral, experience, and fatique checks, but the Bettys/Nells are relatively elite crews in mid 1942. Operationg out of Guadacanal, they continuously found but did not attack USN CV TF operating 4 hexes off GC as raiders. This remained true when GC was supplemented by IJN CV airgroups (Kates, Vals, Zeros) and USN had two 2xCV TFs operation inconcert. USN can pummel IJN shipping off GC but never suffer an attack (the IJN CVs were out of play),

_____________________________

Bill Thomson
bill@wargameacademy.org
skype: wga8888
817-501-2978 CST [-6 GMT]
Post #: 1
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/14/2012 6:05:53 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Well, if they are given enough anchored, stationary targets, they will have more success than they did historically...

(in reply to wga)
Post #: 2
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/14/2012 6:11:51 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16062
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Generally, LBA will not attack CV's with CAP unless they have fighter escorts. The Allied 4EB's are the exception to this, as they had the defensive armament to fend off enemy fighters.

There is a lot of back and forth about the effectiveness of Allied 4EB's in AE, and it has been going on since the UV days. I know things have been changed over the newer releases, but I think the consensus is that 4EB's are still a little too effective on low altitude Naval Attacks. The "average" house rule I've seen to handle this is to set a minimum altitude for non-USN 4EB's on Naval Attack missions of around 10k feet.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 3
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/14/2012 10:15:35 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: online
i agree w/ USS USA, there seems to be a consensus for a PBEM HR of 'no Allied 4E NavAttack below 10k alt."

IMO this should not restrict Allied 'armed recce' on NavSearch missions at lower altitude, nor should you restrict the PortAttack option. In AE, B-17s can put a hurt on unloading IJN invasion TFs, but only if those TFs are unprotected. restricting Allied port-attack robs the Allied player of half his available offensive riposte (the other half being the Dutch K-boats and USN S-boats), & lets the IJN player ignore normal caution in developing his game. early Allied 4E replacements are few enough, that they can be neutralized by adequate IJN action w/o excessive HR-castration.

also, while i've not played UV, i assume it's somewhat similar to WitP/AE. but the engine has been tweaked quite a bit, & the interface has been radically improved, so i kinda doubt that tactical results from UV have any relevance to an AE game (IIRC, NavTF AA has had multiple revisions). so i think you're wise to play an AE guadalcanal scenario before shipping out for the GC - there's so many more options available from the upgraded AE interface that you'll both be happy that you spent the time.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 4
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 12:32:28 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7866
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
There core game engine for UV, Game Plan Orange, WitP, and WitP-AE are all the same, but each version has had improvements. I think active development on UV ended about 8 years ago, AE is still getting programmer support.

All the various algorithms got looked at during AE development with an eye towards making results more realistic. Success wasn't 100%, changes made for one set of conditions could imbalance another set of conditions. The air team in AE was led by an active duty USN fighter pilot.

If you use 4E bombers in something different from their historic role, you will probably get ahistoric results. The same is true of everything else.

Historically 4E bombers used at high altitude on naval strike were horrible at hitting moving targets. On the other hand when their job was hitting stationary targets (usually at anchor in ports, but occasionally just docked and unloading), the results were usually pretty bad for the guys on the receiving end. Even a near miss in very shallow water could be catastrophic, especially for an unarmored ship. The blast reflecting off the bottom could break the keel of a ship.

Historically the Japanese tried to provide good air cover for unloading transports within range of US bombers. If they couldn't they would try to only unload at night and be gone before dawn. They were doing their best to prevent the situation you saw play out where 4E bombers carpet bomb the transports.

I've been playtesting or just playing AE since almost 2 years before it came out. I think I've seen 4E bombers above 10000 feet hit a warship underway once and that was while the game was still under development. They aren't usually all that great below 10000 feet either in my experience.

AE is not perfect and everyone has opinions. If you search you will probably find someone complaining that something is way better than historical and then find saying the exact same thing is way too weak compared to historical. Because of all the randomness in the game, anomalies will happen, just as they did in real life.

However, on average, AE is probably the most accurate triphibious (air, land, and sea) simulation ever produced.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 5
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 11:40:14 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6817
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
In the future, as the game progresses, I may have some info for you about 4Es on naval attack. I decided to leave out the HR on 4E attacks below 10k to see how it works. My opponent, Historiker, also is doing an AAR so this could be an interesting place to see the effectiveness with the new patch of 4E naval bombing. I hope it's not as strong as it was in your game!


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 6
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 11:49:00 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
UV still have some serious balance issues, and also nasty bugs. It was so frustrating to see 25 Corsairs slaughter entire KB's air wing, or units dissappearing, or game engine automatically adding damaged ships to yout TF, or your TF loading enemy units... UV was a great game at the time, but now AE is so much better and much more polished.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 7
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 12:24:37 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4448
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I think 4E can be leathal even above 10k given the right traning. Even if they will miss most if you mass enough some hits will occur I think. Some 200 4Es are alot of bombs. One or two are bound to hit if you train the pilots up a bit in naval bombing! Have not had the opportunity to test this yet though. Perhaps someone else have tried?

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 8
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 12:31:36 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1414
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I think 4E can be leathal even above 10k given the right traning. Even if they will miss most if you mass enough some hits will occur I think. Some 200 4Es are alot of bombs. One or two are bound to hit if you train the pilots up a bit in naval bombing! Have not had the opportunity to test this yet though. Perhaps someone else have tried?


+ they're annoying in that they never, ever, turn back. If they pass the morale check to fly the sortie, they'll fly it to the target. Also if 150 4Es sortie against, say, KB, they may not score any hits but there will be less than 10 planes left in the CAP when they leave... With dozens of elite Zeros downed, typically for no losses.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 9
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 12:42:19 PM   
armin


Posts: 57
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
41 december B squad can pass any checks against cap (except carrier cap)and made precision bombing.

There should be some limits like the number of cap present and ammount of bombers that will launch against those odds. Especialy in the early days when the bomber crews had no experience. In reality first B bomber squads barely operated and had to withdraw due to lack of technical support and supplies. And i think 7th Bombardment on the field had its squads spread from australia to india in complete mess. in witp ae you have just to have airfield and you are ready to roll.

Hell you can even use airfield size 1 for transporting B bombers and it takes only one engineer unit and 2-3 days to fix them. At 15-20 december you can have any unrestricted bombers (around 50) already in australia or rabaul. Keep in mind at this point KB just returns to home islands or is just being repaired somewhere else.

< Message edited by armin -- 5/15/2012 12:50:49 PM >

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 10
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 1:05:14 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4448
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I think 4E can be leathal even above 10k given the right traning. Even if they will miss most if you mass enough some hits will occur I think. Some 200 4Es are alot of bombs. One or two are bound to hit if you train the pilots up a bit in naval bombing! Have not had the opportunity to test this yet though. Perhaps someone else have tried?


+ they're annoying in that they never, ever, turn back. If they pass the morale check to fly the sortie, they'll fly it to the target. Also if 150 4Es sortie against, say, KB, they may not score any hits but there will be less than 10 planes left in the CAP when they leave... With dozens of elite Zeros downed, typically for no losses.


Don´t put your CVs within 4E range?

Same goes for the Allies. Don´t get within netty/betty range!

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 11
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 1:15:27 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1414
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
At least the Netties dont shoot down enemy fighters at a 1:1 ratio and usually lose at least half a Group, with their pilots, should they meet a CAP of any size.

My point in the above post was that the game allows the 4Es to be used, and very effectively, in 2 ways that would have never been possible in real life: to destroy CAP(lol...) and to do the low altitude naval attacks against(relatively) heavy AAA.

That of course is also true for H6K and H8K - like Allied 4Es they're just way too slow to be anything but easy targets and would spend much too time in AAA range to survive. That the game also gives them the defensive formation bonus on their way in and out does not help any, decimating the CAP and making them as fighters second to only P-51 maybe...

< Message edited by Erkki -- 5/15/2012 1:16:44 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 12
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/15/2012 2:46:06 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4448
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Haha, Well I´m not that far along yet to really see the effects of 4Es against CAP. The few times they have encountered CAP in my game they havn´t remarcable well if they wern´t outnumbering the CAP by a fair margin. 100 Massed B24 and B17 do have quite a punch. That would be what, 900 50cals?

I have not had the chance to put 4Es up against CVs yet. But I expect heavy losses if I do!

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 13
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/16/2012 2:38:04 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"In last game, Allied B17s operationg out of Austrailia, ignored the crippled IJN CVs between PM and Australia and instead pounded the stationary IJN transports at Buna [unloading over the beach] with success. "

Typically bombing attacks, especially those of Level Bombers, will go after the stationary TFs in a port hex rather than the more difficult to hit maneuvering TFs at sea.

I am usually screaming at the computer for the opposite reason: the bombing attacks will go after the bloody battleships and cruisers escorting the approaching invasion TFs when I want them to go after the bloody transports!!!

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 5/16/2012 2:39:00 AM >


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 14
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/16/2012 7:13:54 PM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Contrary to it seems popular opinion of the JFB's 4e bombers do take unsustainable losses when sent against heavy cap or low against heavy AA. These losses aren't usually direct losses in the way of shot down planes but are instead ops losses.

Reading historical accounts 4e bombers were used vs shipping fairly often early in the war (to varying degree's of success) and I see nothing wrong with employing them so. Their effectiveness in game (at higher altitudes) doesn't seem out of line with historical. Later in the war it seems like they had a better use for them in land targets (and a serious lack of naval targets around anyways) but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been used for naval attacks as they were in the beginning.

I would agree with house rules limiting 4e bombers to a minimum of 10k feet, but wouldn't agree with anything beyond that such as limited numbers or disallowing them to bomb navally at all.

(in reply to wga)
Post #: 15
RE: B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? - 5/19/2012 3:50:42 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline


Luftwaffe called attacking 4E formations as "controlled suicide"...

4E are tough

but trading 18 tons of aviation metal for 2 tons of aviation metal
is not very economical

so while 4E sweeps could shoot down fighters, it's a bit dumb to use them in that role
(unless you are sweeping against a CAP of Ki-27 Nates, then it would be pretty smart )

they do survive a lot better against flak though.. so really 4E against naval targets
would be quite effective (what if the B-17s on Midway were sent in at 1000 feet?)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to wga)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> B17s/B24s vs naval? LBA vs CVs? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.102