Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Is night air combat broken?

 
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 >> RE: Is night air combat broken? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 12:19:39 AM   
Miller


Posts: 2195
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
Well known problem in AE. In my last game the B29 would achieve a 5:1 kill ratio over my night fighters, regardless of pilot exp or aircraft type.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 31
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 4:20:23 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2997
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Night bombing is broken. So just say 'No' .

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 32
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 7:02:15 PM   
MDDgames

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Good point. There shouldn't be a combat box bonus at night. Maybe difficult to eradicate as you say.

That said with a bit of HRs night bombing as well as night intercepts are ok (we limit ourselves to certain targets depending on the moon as well as forcing 10k min alt and 50% rest setting for attacks). Pretty much removes any issue. Night CAP with daylight fighters and 50exp should take heavy losses...


Well, that is also part of the problem with the game. The OOB is based on the historical OOB. And that was based on what happened in the real war. For example, the units assigned to the US West coast released to Europe. They werent released until the threat was no longer there.

Same with night fighters. The allies didnt start forming night fighter units until late in the war. Why? Because they didnt have the ability to do it earlier? No. They didnt do it earlier because they didnt HAVE to do it earlier. The Japanese started attacking at night in earnest after they realized they couldnt get through the allies daytime CAP.

Same is true in reverse. The allies didnt start whole-sale night bombing until 1945. So prior to that, the Japs didnt really need night fighters or night fighter units. But if the players use this hole in the game (insert the word "gamey" here) to do un-historical night attacks, the other player really has no counter to it because the GAME wont let him counter it by building the radar equipped fighters before their real-war counterparts did.

It wasnt that they couldnt of fielded these units (either side), it is simply they didnt have to. Now I wont argue the 50% experience thing, except that just because an airplane fights at night, doesnt mean necessarily that it lands at night.

< Message edited by MDDgames -- 8/21/2013 7:03:17 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 33
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 8:16:29 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Night bombing is broken. So just say 'No' .
Broken, yes, but not broken as the liddle kiddle main forum folks think. It's just not righteous.

Ulness we can get michaelm to tweak the code our way (and that means YOUR way is out of Dodge) then you get what is in the executable.

And the executable ain't bad, so you guys are gonna have to put up a whole lotta data to make it change. And I will be the gatekeeper for change requests.

Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 34
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 9:43:36 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
So what? The game has a historical OOB (scen1 without Japan crossing certain borders that is...), thats why I love it. If you find the implications annoying supplement with HRs as you wish, problem gone.

As JWE said, there are issues with night air. But they do in no way threaten a PBEM played by sane individuals.

_____________________________


(in reply to MDDgames)
Post #: 35
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 10:13:26 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

night air results ought to be negligible for both sides



_____________________________

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

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 36
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 10:19:58 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

edit: that is.. a2a results need to be negligible

at present, agreed that CAP is given a higher loss rate than they are supposed to

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 37
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 10:27:04 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12737
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Night bombing is broken. So just say 'No' .
Broken, yes, but not broken as the liddle kiddle main forum folks think. It's just not righteous.

Ulness we can get michaelm to tweak the code our way (and that means YOUR way is out of Dodge) then you get what is in the executable.

And the executable ain't bad, so you guys are gonna have to put up a whole lotta data to make it change. And I will be the gatekeeper for change requests.

Ciao. JWE


I'm sorry, but I might be just a bit too simple to understand what you're saying here.

So night bombers hit fighters as if they're in daylight and in formation, and the the bombers target specific industry or airfields usually better than historical daylight accuracy while bombing in almost zero moonlight.

I know you have immense knowledge and experience here, I just can't work out what you've tried to imply.

So what are you saying?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 38
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 11:24:11 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5003
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
IRL the USAAF burned the heart out of almost every Japanese city in a few months with night bombing.
I have not seen much evidence that the Japanese air defense system provided much if any defense.
In fact there is very little evidence that the Japanese air defense system was much good in the daytime. But then again there is clear evidence that the Japanese Navy (at least) were still wondering whether or not having a CIC (Combat Information Center) on their ships would help anything.

IRL the Japanese armed forces were way too involved with their Samurai Swords. That which did not immediately revolve around an individual directly fighting his enemy just wasn't given any priority. Better that some Samurai wander around in the dark than some other Samurai have to stay on the ground and tell his co-worker which way to point his guns. The Germans were a completely different ballgame.

The code which apparently doesn't allow the Japanese Player to improvise a night bomber defense using his day fighters is not a cause for ANY change in the code. Perhaps the losses suffered by those day fighters are too extreme but it is hard to statistically analyze something that didn't happen (improvised night bombing defense by day fighters). That only requires a tweak, not a re-write.


(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 39
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/21/2013 11:55:15 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 610
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
IMHO would be useful to make two tweaks :
1) limit even more (+ 20% ?) the number of bombers that are able to come to the target (if possible in function of the distance and of the moonlight).
2) increase (triple?) the number of the op-losses for the planes (both bombers and day-fighters) flying at night.


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 40
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 12:43:21 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5003
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

IMHO would be useful to make two tweaks :
1) limit even more (+ 20% ?) the number of bombers that are able to come to the target (if possible in function of the distance and of the moonlight).
2) increase (triple?) the number of the op-losses for the planes (both bombers and day-fighters) flying at night.


Another tweak which eliminates another Allied Strategy which actually worked fine IRL. Pretty soon we'll have a game which everybody wants to play Allies to see if they have a chance to win. Just like real. Haven't we already had about enough of those.

(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 41
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 12:46:28 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

a2a night model

- losses to fighters too high from defensive fire

don't need to take down droves of 4E at night, just reduce the number of fighter losses



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 42
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 12:47:35 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

btw ops losses at night were really big

remember RAF bmr command?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 43
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 12:55:06 AM   
MDDgames

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

In fact there is very little evidence that the Japanese air defense system was much good in the daytime.



If the Jap daytime air defense was ineffective, then why did they switch to night bombing? Why did they fly at 36,000+ feet over Japan during the day and 8,000 at night? Why did they take Iwo Jima?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 44
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 7:17:33 AM   
obvert


Posts: 12737
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IRL the USAAF burned the heart out of almost every Japanese city in a few months with night bombing.
I have not seen much evidence that the Japanese air defense system provided much if any defense.
In fact there is very little evidence that the Japanese air defense system was much good in the daytime. But then again there is clear evidence that the Japanese Navy (at least) were still wondering whether or not having a CIC (Combat Information Center) on their ships would help anything.

IRL the Japanese armed forces were way too involved with their Samurai Swords. That which did not immediately revolve around an individual directly fighting his enemy just wasn't given any priority. Better that some Samurai wander around in the dark than some other Samurai have to stay on the ground and tell his co-worker which way to point his guns. The Germans were a completely different ballgame.

The code which apparently doesn't allow the Japanese Player to improvise a night bomber defense using his day fighters is not a cause for ANY change in the code. Perhaps the losses suffered by those day fighters are too extreme but it is hard to statistically analyze something that didn't happen (improvised night bombing defense by day fighters). That only requires a tweak, not a re-write.




Most everything you're saying is spot on here. In game though it doesn't matter if it's daylight fighters or NF, the bombers are shooting like they're in formation and it's daylight. So if I send up one 18 plane group of NF I often lose 5-8 in single night for maybe 1-2 A to A and ops losses to the B-29s. If I send up double that number I get nearly double the losses to the point it gets pretty extreme for guys shooting in nearly total darkness at moving objects they should barely be able to see.

Also, unless HRed night bombing is widely recognized to be too powerful in game and therefore tough to deal with early on when there are NO night-fighter groups. They don't arrive until mid-43, and then only a few.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 45
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 1:24:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IRL the USAAF burned the heart out of almost every Japanese city in a few months with night bombing.
I have not seen much evidence that the Japanese air defense system provided much if any defense.
In fact there is very little evidence that the Japanese air defense system was much good in the daytime. But then again there is clear evidence that the Japanese Navy (at least) were still wondering whether or not having a CIC (Combat Information Center) on their ships would help anything.

IRL the Japanese armed forces were way too involved with their Samurai Swords. That which did not immediately revolve around an individual directly fighting his enemy just wasn't given any priority. Better that some Samurai wander around in the dark than some other Samurai have to stay on the ground and tell his co-worker which way to point his guns. The Germans were a completely different ballgame.

The code which apparently doesn't allow the Japanese Player to improvise a night bomber defense using his day fighters is not a cause for ANY change in the code. Perhaps the losses suffered by those day fighters are too extreme but it is hard to statistically analyze something that didn't happen (improvised night bombing defense by day fighters). That only requires a tweak, not a re-write.




Most everything you're saying is spot on here. In game though it doesn't matter if it's daylight fighters or NF, the bombers are shooting like they're in formation and it's daylight. So if I send up one 18 plane group of NF I often lose 5-8 in single night for maybe 1-2 A to A and ops losses to the B-29s. If I send up double that number I get nearly double the losses to the point it gets pretty extreme for guys shooting in nearly total darkness at moving objects they should barely be able to see.

Also, unless HRed night bombing is widely recognized to be too powerful in game and therefore tough to deal with early on when there are NO night-fighter groups. They don't arrive until mid-43, and then only a few.


You're forgetting the part where your FIGHTERS also are attacking in formation and en masse.

I have done lots and lots of night bombing in 1942. I've done lots in 1944 and 1945 versus the AI. It is simply untrue that accuracy at night is the same or better than daytime. While fighter losses may be considered high, it is also an option for the defender to not mount a night CAP. Avoid a pavlovian response to every stimuli. AA works well at night.

Also, the part that keeps being forgotten in these interminable night bombing threads is the opportunity cost argument. Night bombing planes get lost A LOT and do not complete their missions. In my 1942 experience it's 30-50% as a rough rule. Very many times the unit will not launch at all. But for those that launch but RTB the supplies are still consumed for no result. And the most important thing is those night bombing planes are not available for use the next daylight phase. They're used up.

So the attacker is making a deal: he flies at a time when he can go lower and maybe get better targeting, and have some but less AA response, he may still have to fight off fighters but also maybe not as many since many players ignore night CAP, but in exchange he gives up a large portion of his asset, often misses the target, incurs higher ops losses on landing, and does not have the planes for use in higher-accuracy missions the next day. It is a trade off.

For the defender the same. Night CAP means those fighters are not available the next day. They have higher ops losses from landing accidents. If they fly they are shot down in numbers which approach (I have no data) daytime levels, BUT they also have the same chance to disrupt and/or turn back the bombers, just as in the day.

On balance, except for the special rules involving Manpower attacks and Fires, the advantage seems to be on the defender here, even or especially if he doesn't night CAP. His opponent is giving up 30-50% of his planes and the defender isn't losing fighters to combat or higher ops losses.

For this reason I have pulled way back on night bombing in my game, except for Manpower. And Mike hasn't even night CAPed much. He did a few times, but then I suspect saw what others here describe--it's a bad ROI, at least in 1942. And in many ways it's a bad ROI for the attacker too. Which doesn't mean I think it should be banned. Sometimes it's useful, and it's always useful to complicate your opponent's planning. Just as he can complicate yours by once in a while night CAPing. All you do with HRs on issues like this is channel player behavior into narrower and narrower boundaries.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/22/2013 1:27:40 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 46
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 3:21:49 PM   
Squamry

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


a2a night model

- losses to fighters too high from defensive fire

don't need to take down droves of 4E at night, just reduce the number of fighter losses



I think this is probably the only tweak needed.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 47
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 5:32:23 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2997
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IRL the USAAF burned the heart out of almost every Japanese city in a few months with night bombing.
I have not seen much evidence that the Japanese air defense system provided much if any defense.
In fact there is very little evidence that the Japanese air defense system was much good in the daytime. But then again there is clear evidence that the Japanese Navy (at least) were still wondering whether or not having a CIC (Combat Information Center) on their ships would help anything.

IRL the Japanese armed forces were way too involved with their Samurai Swords. That which did not immediately revolve around an individual directly fighting his enemy just wasn't given any priority. Better that some Samurai wander around in the dark than some other Samurai have to stay on the ground and tell his co-worker which way to point his guns. The Germans were a completely different ballgame.

The code which apparently doesn't allow the Japanese Player to improvise a night bomber defense using his day fighters is not a cause for ANY change in the code. Perhaps the losses suffered by those day fighters are too extreme but it is hard to statistically analyze something that didn't happen (improvised night bombing defense by day fighters). That only requires a tweak, not a re-write.




Most everything you're saying is spot on here. In game though it doesn't matter if it's daylight fighters or NF, the bombers are shooting like they're in formation and it's daylight. So if I send up one 18 plane group of NF I often lose 5-8 in single night for maybe 1-2 A to A and ops losses to the B-29s. If I send up double that number I get nearly double the losses to the point it gets pretty extreme for guys shooting in nearly total darkness at moving objects they should barely be able to see.

Also, unless HRed night bombing is widely recognized to be too powerful in game and therefore tough to deal with early on when there are NO night-fighter groups. They don't arrive until mid-43, and then only a few.


You're forgetting the part where your FIGHTERS also are attacking in formation and en masse.

I have done lots and lots of night bombing in 1942. I've done lots in 1944 and 1945 versus the AI. It is simply untrue that accuracy at night is the same or better than daytime. While fighter losses may be considered high, it is also an option for the defender to not mount a night CAP. Avoid a pavlovian response to every stimuli. AA works well at night.

Also, the part that keeps being forgotten in these interminable night bombing threads is the opportunity cost argument. Night bombing planes get lost A LOT and do not complete their missions. In my 1942 experience it's 30-50% as a rough rule. Very many times the unit will not launch at all. But for those that launch but RTB the supplies are still consumed for no result. And the most important thing is those night bombing planes are not available for use the next daylight phase. They're used up.

So the attacker is making a deal: he flies at a time when he can go lower and maybe get better targeting, and have some but less AA response, he may still have to fight off fighters but also maybe not as many since many players ignore night CAP, but in exchange he gives up a large portion of his asset, often misses the target, incurs higher ops losses on landing, and does not have the planes for use in higher-accuracy missions the next day. It is a trade off.

For the defender the same. Night CAP means those fighters are not available the next day. They have higher ops losses from landing accidents. If they fly they are shot down in numbers which approach (I have no data) daytime levels, BUT they also have the same chance to disrupt and/or turn back the bombers, just as in the day.

On balance, except for the special rules involving Manpower attacks and Fires, the advantage seems to be on the defender here, even or especially if he doesn't night CAP. His opponent is giving up 30-50% of his planes and the defender isn't losing fighters to combat or higher ops losses.

For this reason I have pulled way back on night bombing in my game, except for Manpower. And Mike hasn't even night CAPed much. He did a few times, but then I suspect saw what others here describe--it's a bad ROI, at least in 1942. And in many ways it's a bad ROI for the attacker too. Which doesn't mean I think it should be banned. Sometimes it's useful, and it's always useful to complicate your opponent's planning. Just as he can complicate yours by once in a while night CAPing. All you do with HRs on issues like this is channel player behavior into narrower and narrower boundaries.


This is a good analysis Bullwinkle58 and one I had not condisred before.

In late '42 as Japan my daytime raids were starting to meet more Allied resistance and were losing their effectiviness (the beginning of the end ). So I decided to try night bombing just to see if it would be any better. I was very surprised (as was my opponent) at how well it was working. even when he put day fighters on night duty. So I started using it more and more because I was actually losing less planes than may daytime raiding due to reduced AA, ineffecting CAP, etc. So basicly I found the tradeoffs for me were

Daytime
Increased CAP and AA effectiveness, and ever increasing number of planes lost for supposeily better results for the planes that got through

Night
Decreased CAP and AA effectiveness, and about the same number of plane loses due to night, but it seemed to both of us, that there was no impact on the actual bombing damage. Actually the damage seemed to be better at night because more planes got throgh? Don't know as we did not keep track.

So of course, he started to do the same back Good for the goose and gander and all of that you know lol.

After looking at some of the HRs concerning this topic, we both thought is was simpler and easier just to not night bomb at all. Just because something ws used in the real war does not mean you have to have it in the game . I know that is heasay to some here

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 48
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 7:42:03 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12737
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IRL the USAAF burned the heart out of almost every Japanese city in a few months with night bombing.
I have not seen much evidence that the Japanese air defense system provided much if any defense.
In fact there is very little evidence that the Japanese air defense system was much good in the daytime. But then again there is clear evidence that the Japanese Navy (at least) were still wondering whether or not having a CIC (Combat Information Center) on their ships would help anything.

IRL the Japanese armed forces were way too involved with their Samurai Swords. That which did not immediately revolve around an individual directly fighting his enemy just wasn't given any priority. Better that some Samurai wander around in the dark than some other Samurai have to stay on the ground and tell his co-worker which way to point his guns. The Germans were a completely different ballgame.

The code which apparently doesn't allow the Japanese Player to improvise a night bomber defense using his day fighters is not a cause for ANY change in the code. Perhaps the losses suffered by those day fighters are too extreme but it is hard to statistically analyze something that didn't happen (improvised night bombing defense by day fighters). That only requires a tweak, not a re-write.




Most everything you're saying is spot on here. In game though it doesn't matter if it's daylight fighters or NF, the bombers are shooting like they're in formation and it's daylight. So if I send up one 18 plane group of NF I often lose 5-8 in single night for maybe 1-2 A to A and ops losses to the B-29s. If I send up double that number I get nearly double the losses to the point it gets pretty extreme for guys shooting in nearly total darkness at moving objects they should barely be able to see.

Also, unless HRed night bombing is widely recognized to be too powerful in game and therefore tough to deal with early on when there are NO night-fighter groups. They don't arrive until mid-43, and then only a few.


You're forgetting the part where your FIGHTERS also are attacking in formation and en masse.



Are you talking about NF at night or fighters in general during the day here?


quote:



I have done lots and lots of night bombing in 1942. I've done lots in 1944 and 1945 versus the AI. It is simply untrue that accuracy at night is the same or better than daytime. While fighter losses may be considered high, it is also an option for the defender to not mount a night CAP. Avoid a pavlovian response to every stimuli. AA works well at night.



If you 'simply' categorically say something is untrue evidence would be a big help in getting someone to understand that better. In my experience with the evince of many NF and day fighter interactions with night bombing I've come to the conclusion that it is the case. I'll try to run a test to provide more evidence, but you'll find plenty of examples of NF vs B-29s in the past 5 pages or so of my AAR vs Jockmeister.

If there is no HR against night bombing then not putting up a CAP is simply not an option. A fairly large field can be shut down, and I think we've already been through this part earlier in this or another discussion, Bull! If you put CAP up the bombers at least don't have as much accuracy. When oil is involved late as Japan, any amount of saving points there is worth the fighters you lose, but it's just too bad it's so many per day.

quote:


Also, the part that keeps being forgotten in these interminable night bombing threads is the opportunity cost argument. Night bombing planes get lost A LOT and do not complete their missions. In my 1942 experience it's 30-50% as a rough rule. Very many times the unit will not launch at all. But for those that launch but RTB the supplies are still consumed for no result. And the most important thing is those night bombing planes are not available for use the next daylight phase. They're used up.

So the attacker is making a deal: he flies at a time when he can go lower and maybe get better targeting, and have some but less AA response, he may still have to fight off fighters but also maybe not as many since many players ignore night CAP, but in exchange he gives up a large portion of his asset, often misses the target, incurs higher ops losses on landing, and does not have the planes for use in higher-accuracy missions the next day. It is a trade off.

For the defender the same. Night CAP means those fighters are not available the next day. They have higher ops losses from landing accidents. If they fly they are shot down in numbers which approach (I have no data) daytime levels, BUT they also have the same chance to disrupt and/or turn back the bombers, just as in the day.

On balance, except for the special rules involving Manpower attacks and Fires, the advantage seems to be on the defender here, even or especially if he doesn't night CAP. His opponent is giving up 30-50% of his planes and the defender isn't losing fighters to combat or higher ops losses.

For this reason I have pulled way back on night bombing in my game, except for Manpower. And Mike hasn't even night CAPed much. He did a few times, but then I suspect saw what others here describe--it's a bad ROI, at least in 1942. And in many ways it's a bad ROI for the attacker too. Which doesn't mean I think it should be banned. Sometimes it's useful, and it's always useful to complicate your opponent's planning. Just as he can complicate yours by once in a while night CAPing. All you do with HRs on issues like this is channel player behavior into narrower and narrower boundaries.


The majority here disagree, obviously. The HR for night bombing is one of the few that is truly necessary especially in the early game.

It's too powerful against precise targets and your opportunity cost doesn't fly. If the bombers risk 10-20% losses during the day for virtually no gain every mission against a decent CAP, but can hit the same base virtually uninhibited although with smaller numbers less often and lose very few planes, (while taking big chunks out of whatever night CAP happens to be flying), plus still effectively shut down the base or take out the oil, which does it look like would be more effective?

The advantage is virtually never for the defender in a night bombing situation. It can be for short periods in one point, but only later when NF are around and flak is improved.



_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 49
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 7:50:15 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

ops losses for night need to be higher

look at RAF vs germany, going in over land to maybe 12-14 hexes

and thousands simply dissapeared into the ether


pacific was worse


oh by the way, the only thing that can be found and struck accurately at night were area targets

ground support / af / port probably way over-rated in the AE game

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 50
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 8:02:43 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Were you playing with the beta? What percentage of your night missions RTBed? You can't just look at hits for the planes which pushed on. You have to look at the whole "investment."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 51
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/22/2013 8:34:26 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

You're forgetting the part where your FIGHTERS also are attacking in formation and en masse.



Are you talking about NF at night or fighters in general during the day here?
quote:



I'm talking about any fighters. The attack in "day" formations, pass after coordinated pass. And I'm not facing NF yet in my game, although they only differ in the plane and gun stats in the DB. I've faced Nates at night in China in 1942. They are wonder weapons in how the whole formation finds my bombers. If you have a beef with fighter losses it's because out of 20 intercepting you get 20 attacking, and then the bomber weapon stats take over. Would 20 planes with no radios, no radar, and no ground direction get a flight of 20 onto a bomber formation? Nope. So if you're going to compare, make it apples to apples. The bomber guns are statted for them to have cooperative firing, as they do in day. Maybe those stats are stepped down at night; I don't know. You don't think they are. But the fighters also perform exactly as they do in the daytime too. The way you want it the bombers would be lone lambs waiting to be pounced on by a formation of fighters, all of which intercept just as they do in broad daylight.

I have done lots and lots of night bombing in 1942. I've done lots in 1944 and 1945 versus the AI. It is simply untrue that accuracy at night is the same or better than daytime. While fighter losses may be considered high, it is also an option for the defender to not mount a night CAP. Avoid a pavlovian response to every stimuli. AA works well at night.



If you 'simply' categorically say something is untrue evidence would be a big help in getting someone to understand that better.

My AAR contains at least 100 night bombing attacks and probably more.

In my experience with the evince of many NF and day fighter interactions with night bombing I've come to the conclusion that it is the case. I'll try to run a test to provide more evidence, but you'll find plenty of examples of NF vs B-29s in the past 5 pages or so of my AAR vs Jockmeister.

You are assuming huge B-29 raids against NFs in the late war. Very different circumstances than 7 B-17s against non-NF in 1942. That's one problem, of many, with HRs. Everything looks like a nail when you have that hammer.

If there is no HR against night bombing then not putting up a CAP is simply not an option.

Again, I refer you to my AAR.

A fairly large field can be shut down, and I think we've already been through this part earlier in this or another discussion, Bull! If you put CAP up the bombers at least don't have as much accuracy. When oil is involved late as Japan, any amount of saving points there is worth the fighters you lose, but it's just too bad it's so many per day.
quote:



Again, you, as the defender, only see what got through. You don't see what bled off. Yes, CAP day or night can disrupt accuracy, but at a cost in fighters. As it should be. You don't get freebies here. You get a choice. The issue is what is the exact amount of inaccuracy caused to non-disrupted bombers at night versus the same force by day? Same altitude, same pilots, same fatigue, etc, etc. And we are never going to be told that. And you can't test for it unless you want to run a very large set of trials. In my 1942 experience the accuracy is worse, leavened by the ability to come in lower, since my experience is AA is less effective too. Is it a 1:1 trade-off, night for low altitude? I don't know for sure. Some days yes, some days no.

For my AI 1944-45 experience with B-29s I will say that daytime altitude is VERY important in Manpower attacks. There is a big difference between 9000 feet and 25,000 feet. Doing 9000 feet over the HI in daylight is suicide. Over Miri it might not be. I never used B-29s on Borneo. I had lots of other 4Es for short-range.


Also, the part that keeps being forgotten in these interminable night bombing threads is the opportunity cost argument. Night bombing planes get lost A LOT and do not complete their missions. In my 1942 experience it's 30-50% as a rough rule. Very many times the unit will not launch at all. But for those that launch but RTB the supplies are still consumed for no result. And the most important thing is those night bombing planes are not available for use the next daylight phase. They're used up.

So the attacker is making a deal: he flies at a time when he can go lower and maybe get better targeting, and have some but less AA response, he may still have to fight off fighters but also maybe not as many since many players ignore night CAP, but in exchange he gives up a large portion of his asset, often misses the target, incurs higher ops losses on landing, and does not have the planes for use in higher-accuracy missions the next day. It is a trade off.

For the defender the same. Night CAP means those fighters are not available the next day. They have higher ops losses from landing accidents. If they fly they are shot down in numbers which approach (I have no data) daytime levels, BUT they also have the same chance to disrupt and/or turn back the bombers, just as in the day.

On balance, except for the special rules involving Manpower attacks and Fires, the advantage seems to be on the defender here, even or especially if he doesn't night CAP. His opponent is giving up 30-50% of his planes and the defender isn't losing fighters to combat or higher ops losses.

For this reason I have pulled way back on night bombing in my game, except for Manpower. And Mike hasn't even night CAPed much. He did a few times, but then I suspect saw what others here describe--it's a bad ROI, at least in 1942. And in many ways it's a bad ROI for the attacker too. Which doesn't mean I think it should be banned. Sometimes it's useful, and it's always useful to complicate your opponent's planning. Just as he can complicate yours by once in a while night CAPing. All you do with HRs on issues like this is channel player behavior into narrower and narrower boundaries.


The majority here disagree, obviously.

I don't care about majority rule. It's a weak argument.

The HR for night bombing is one of the few that is truly necessary especially in the early game.

I'm in the early game. And it really isn't necessary. Ask my opponent. On a good day I can get 30 4Es up. OTOH, ask him about his AA losses recently at Palembang in daylight. Night bombing works for both sides. But a lot of early war Japanese players don't do it because they're, what? Drunk with power? In love with 70-Oscar escort wings? Dunno. But few do any until they think they need to. You don't like getting creamed in late 1944 by overwhelming air power? Welcome to Allied World, The 1942 Tour.

It's too powerful against precise targets and your opportunity cost doesn't fly.

I have stopped almost all HI/LI night attacks, even at 1000 feet, because it really isn't accurate. Very much the opposite. Manpower is different. That I'm still doing sometimes. For precise targets such as oil or refineries I do day now almost all the time.

But opportunity cost DOES fly. The beta changes have led to many more lost and confused formations than in the official.


If the bombers risk 10-20% losses during the day for virtually no gain every mission against a decent CAP, but can hit the same base virtually uninhibited although with smaller numbers less often and lose very few planes, (while taking big chunks out of whatever night CAP happens to be flying), plus still effectively shut down the base or take out the oil, which does it look like would be more effective?

I reject your premises, as I've said. Please don't put words in my mouth. They ARE inhibited if there is a CAP and AA. They start with a good chance of fewer numbers. AND they are less accurate unless low, which gives the AA that is working more of a chance. And then they have a greater chance of crashing on landing. You forgot to mention that last one BTW. Night bombing is not "free." It's just different.

The advantage is virtually never for the defender in a night bombing situation. It can be for short periods in one point, but only later when NF are around and flak is improved.

Again, I disagree. Day fighters used on night CAP are magically effective, as above. AA works, but less in my experience. I will say though that many Japanese players are very bad at placing AA where it needs to be. But the biggest hole in your position is this: You as the defender never see the two biggest negatives to the thing--lost and confused planes still eating supply, and ops losses.



Gotta add a post-script: If night bombing is so great, free, and easy, why don't the Japanese do it more?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/22/2013 8:39:50 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 52
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/23/2013 4:54:28 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Gotta add a post-script: If night bombing is so great, free, and easy, why don't the Japanese do it more?

Simple, IJ have no 4E bombers. Night bombing seems well balanced with 2E bombers. 4E at night? Much different results. You may not have an HR. Survey the other AAR's. Most do have HR's. In fact most AAR's state it as a known fact that 4E night bombing is gamey. Good players in that list. Statistically, that is significant.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 53
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/23/2013 8:55:41 AM   
obvert


Posts: 12737
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm talking about any fighters. The attack in "day" formations, pass after coordinated pass. And I'm not facing NF yet in my game, although they only differ in the plane and gun stats in the DB. I've faced Nates at night in China in 1942. They are wonder weapons in how the whole formation finds my bombers. If you have a beef with fighter losses it's because out of 20 intercepting you get 20 attacking, and then the bomber weapon stats take over. Would 20 planes with no radios, no radar, and no ground direction get a flight of 20 onto a bomber formation? Nope. So if you're going to compare, make it apples to apples. The bomber guns are statted for them to have cooperative firing, as they do in day. Maybe those stats are stepped down at night; I don't know. You don't think they are. But the fighters also perform exactly as they do in the daytime too. The way you want it the bombers would be lone lambs waiting to be pounced on by a formation of fighters, all of which intercept just as they do in broad daylight.


They may engage the bombers, but they will very very rarely shoot them down or even damage them at night (NOT in fact as they work during the day), whereas the defensive fire does shot down the fighters. Your statement is a perfect reason that night bombing is not working well!

If 20 fighters are finding and engaging the bombers, they obviously shouldn't be doing that if this were modeled correctly. They should be working as individual lone wolves, hard to see and hard to hit.

quote:

You are assuming huge B-29 raids against NFs in the late war. Very different circumstances than 7 B-17s against non-NF in 1942. That's one problem, of many, with HRs. Everything looks like a nail when you have that hammer.

I'm in the early game. And it really isn't necessary. Ask my opponent. On a good day I can get 30 4Es up. OTOH, ask him about his AA losses recently at Palembang in daylight. Night bombing works for both sides. But a lot of early war Japanese players don't do it because they're, what? Drunk with power? In love with 70-Oscar escort wings? Dunno. But few do any until they think they need to. You don't like getting creamed in late 1944 by overwhelming air power? Welcome to Allied World, The 1942 Tour.


Actually, no.

I'm referring as well to large raids in 42. These have an incredibly devastating effect for that period when there are no Japanese NF, no fighters with armor, very poor AA and radar.

It would really help your argument if you kept the silly comments out. Like 'drunk with power' at using 70 Oscars. If you'd played the Japnese side and had to use Oscars for anything, you'd quickly realize there is only one kind of drinking that this induces.

Because your opponent doesn't do something, or you don't do something in game, that doesn't mean it's not possible. I've had a level 6 field shut in one night, with a whole group's worth of torched fighters on the ground, the rest with devastated morale ratings, and no chance to do anything about it again for days. So that creates a nice 'opportunity' of another kind; hit anything you want to for during the daylight for many turns, and further reduce the strength of the opposing side.

Great play? Well, not if the original attack that made it possible is a night strike giving every benefit to the player with the better bombers that have unbelievable accuracy in conditions that made it nearly impossibly difficult for the British (the best at night bombing in the war) to get within 5 miles of their intended target in the war! You say add more AA, add fighters to distract and reduce effectiveness of bombers, and yes, those are the only responses, but they are not enough in certain situations, massed Allied 4E and 2E strikes at night, which you seem not to have faced.

quote:

I have stopped almost all HI/LI night attacks, even at 1000 feet, because it really isn't accurate. Very much the opposite. Manpower is different. That I'm still doing sometimes. For precise targets such as oil or refineries I do day now almost all the time.

But opportunity cost DOES fly. The beta changes have led to many more lost and confused formations than in the official.


In the game where this is the biggest issue, we're using the official. So yes, it's less of an issue with the beta. I agree with this.

quote:

I reject your premises, as I've said. Please don't put words in my mouth. They ARE inhibited if there is a CAP and AA. They start with a good chance of fewer numbers. AND they are less accurate unless low, which gives the AA that is working more of a chance. And then they have a greater chance of crashing on landing. You forgot to mention that last one BTW. Night bombing is not "free." It's just different.

Again, I disagree. Day fighters used on night CAP are magically effective, as above. AA works, but less in my experience. I will say though that many Japanese players are very bad at placing AA where it needs to be. But the biggest hole in your position is this: You as the defender never see the two biggest negatives to the thing--lost and confused planes still eating supply, and ops losses.


I reject your premises as well! Wow. Surprise!

Not sure where I put words in your mouth. I agree they are inhibited, but at great cost to the defender. As I've experienced and stated over and over, those magic intercepting 20 fighters will lose 7-10 of their number most likely (against a decently sized strike of 70-80 bombers, even though they arrive in separate waves of 9-10 packets), while the bombers might have 1-2 planes damaged and lost to ops on landing. So yes, all you say is correct, you're just not using numbers (that I've seen again and again). Ops losses are ridiculously low for all night missions. Period.

Supply should be a consideration, so the basis of that part of your argument is correct, but have you ever seen supply problem the Allies can't solve very quickly in game? In the war the Allies couldn't mount a significant bombing campaign until late 43 in India and Burma due to supply and manpower shortages, but this is simply not an issue in game if the Allied player has even a moderate interest in pilot training and logistics.

Night bombing will be limited in the beta as many smaller packets arrive. I like that more, but if you're not using the beta, oh well.

Japanese players are not great at placing AA because early AA sucks, especially, and there is not very much of it to go around. Until you know the OOB better on the Japanese side, maybe restrict your comments to what you know about the Allied side so you don't sound so insulting of other players 'very bad' decisions.

Or, in short ...

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Gotta add a post-script: If night bombing is so great, free, and easy, why don't the Japanese do it more?


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Simple, IJ have no 4E bombers. Night bombing seems well balanced with 2E bombers. 4E at night? Much different results. You may not have an HR. Survey the other AAR's. Most do have HR's. In fact most AAR's state it as a known fact that 4E night bombing is gamey. Good players in that list. Statistically, that is significant.


+1

< Message edited by obvert -- 8/23/2013 11:27:10 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 54
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/23/2013 10:33:52 AM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 610
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
Obvert +1
Edit:
It should be also very important the weather at night for deciding if planes can fly.
In absence of visibility withour radars, gps ecc it's impossible to flight at night and to find
the target, particularly if it's as smalll as an airstrip!
In game bombers can flight at night with every weather
(also rain ,covered, thunderstorms, all situations with zero visibility at night)
and with every moonlight (also 0 moonlight). This is so Unreal and that's why HR are strongly needed.
In real life in 42 and 43 you needed at least perfect conditions of weather and moon and I suppose it was the same more scaring and difficult than daytime!
When I see in jan '43 these bombers coming with no visibility and :
1) destroy 30 planes at ground in one attack in an AF not overstacked,
2) leaving all the airgroups with low morale (so that they need 3 turns to recover
3) making the AF level 6 with huges damage
I strongly believe it's something wrong
Allied players really don't need to act so gamey to win the same.



< Message edited by MrBlizzard -- 8/23/2013 1:06:53 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 55
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/23/2013 1:29:19 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Gotta add a post-script: If night bombing is so great, free, and easy, why don't the Japanese do it more?

Simple, IJ have no 4E bombers. Night bombing seems well balanced with 2E bombers. 4E at night? Much different results. You may not have an HR. Survey the other AAR's. Most do have HR's. In fact most AAR's state it as a known fact that 4E night bombing is gamey. Good players in that list. Statistically, that is significant.


It's State Fair Day, so I'm up early to watch the movie, then I go to see the cows and pigs. But this one made me smile.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

"Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

"Snob Appeal: the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true."

In the 16th Century, all right-thinking people in Europe (who wanted to avoid the Inquisition at least) "knew" the solar system revolved around the Earth. But that was clearly crazy, as everyone in India "knew". Clearly the Earth rode about on the back of a giant turtle, carried on the back of a giant elephant.

How many incorrect conclusions have been supported by statistically significant majorities?


< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/23/2013 1:30:12 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 56
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/23/2013 2:42:20 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Gotta add a post-script: If night bombing is so great, free, and easy, why don't the Japanese do it more?

Simple, IJ have no 4E bombers. Night bombing seems well balanced with 2E bombers. 4E at night? Much different results. You may not have an HR. Survey the other AAR's. Most do have HR's. In fact most AAR's state it as a known fact that 4E night bombing is gamey. Good players in that list. Statistically, that is significant.


It's State Fair Day, so I'm up early to watch the movie, then I go to see the cows and pigs. But this one made me smile.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

"Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

"Snob Appeal: the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true."

In the 16th Century, all right-thinking people in Europe (who wanted to avoid the Inquisition at least) "knew" the solar system revolved around the Earth. But that was clearly crazy, as everyone in India "knew". Clearly the Earth rode about on the back of a giant turtle, carried on the back of a giant elephant.

How many incorrect conclusions have been supported by statistically significant majorities?


If we were talking science, you would have a point, a valid one. We're not. We're talking play balance which is perspective. Perspective is based upon what indviduals perceive to be true, there is no "truth", only perception.

I've said many times, I don't know and there is no answer as to whether 100 x 4E's could have ripped up a base in one night. The fact that they can do it repeatedly in game means there is a play balance issue. 2E's cannot obtain the same result, no matter the numbers. Something is different about 4E's in the code. It is no fun to play IJ if the allies use that tactic. Real simple. Not complicated at all. So most AAR's have this HR else there is no game.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 57
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/23/2013 4:45:54 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12737
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Gotta add a post-script: If night bombing is so great, free, and easy, why don't the Japanese do it more?

Simple, IJ have no 4E bombers. Night bombing seems well balanced with 2E bombers. 4E at night? Much different results. You may not have an HR. Survey the other AAR's. Most do have HR's. In fact most AAR's state it as a known fact that 4E night bombing is gamey. Good players in that list. Statistically, that is significant.


It's State Fair Day, so I'm up early to watch the movie, then I go to see the cows and pigs. But this one made me smile.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

"Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

"Snob Appeal: the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true."

In the 16th Century, all right-thinking people in Europe (who wanted to avoid the Inquisition at least) "knew" the solar system revolved around the Earth. But that was clearly crazy, as everyone in India "knew". Clearly the Earth rode about on the back of a giant turtle, carried on the back of a giant elephant.

How many incorrect conclusions have been supported by statistically significant majorities?



The state fair is great. I miss going. No state fairs in England.

The rest of this stuff isn't really part of the discussion, and falls into a third category: "Rhetorical tangent" most often used to derail a conversation from the actual topic.

As usual though, I learned something from your post, which is always a good thing!

(Not the turtle, mind you. I knew about the turtle long ago. The Elephant is news to me though. Are you sure? Seems like the turtle might fall off. Is that what causes earthquakes?)


< Message edited by obvert -- 8/23/2013 4:49:39 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 58
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 6:48:32 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
The common knowledge of the forum about 4e bombers mostly consists of a vocal group who complain endlessly about how OP 4e bombers are without anything more then anecdotes and feelings to back up their claims.

There are and have been endless threads about how OP 4e's are since AE's inception which don't pan out in the real game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's are better at sweeping enemy fighters then actual fighters are, doesn't happen in the game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can go in, unescorted against swarms of fighters and not suffer any losses doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" that 4e's can operate day after day after day without pause doesn't happen in game. The common "knowledge" about how OP 4e bombers are at naval attack doesn't actually happen in game. The common "knowledge" that the allies can operate huge swarms of 4e bombers from the start of the game doesn't actually happen, in game. The common "knowledge" of the forums refuses to acknowledge or accept that 4e bombers will suffer operational losses that dwarf their actual combat losses (said combat losses aren't mythical or insignificant either), or that replacement numbers are miniscule until toward the end of the war.

There seems to be a vocal subset of the forums who have some sort of collective groupthink about how OP 4e bombers are that bears little resemblance to actual gameplay results.

Which leaves me to question any sort of balance complaint brought up about 4e bombers. Is this thread about how OP night air 4e bombers are legitimate (it started out about night combat but seems to have morphed into a 4e bombers vs japan at night thread)? Or is it just another of the endless common "knowledge" threads about how unfair and OP and invincible 4e bombers are?

The fact that already there have been claims that the japanese 2e bombers obviously don't suffer from the over poweredness of the 4e's leads me to doubt the veracity of this complaint as well.

I wish more people would show statistically significant experimental results to back up their claims on these forums, instead of endless threads like this one with just more rhetoric and anecdotes. I want realism out of this game. The more realistic the better. I believe that's something we all should want. If 4e bombers are behaving unrealistically I want their behavior improved, even if that "improvement" is a negative change for the allies. An improvement of increased realism is an improvement to the game as a whole. But it's hard to find any sort of balanced viewpoint backed up by more then just feelings about 4 engine bombers on these forums.



(apologies if this post came off as hostile or nasty. bad day at work and I'm still all twitchy and out of sorts)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 59
RE: Is night air combat broken? - 8/24/2013 7:08:46 AM   
MDDgames

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2013
Status: offline
All you need to do is search the forums.

I dont often play the allies, but my last allied game I know that 7 of my top 10 "aces" were B-17 pilots (in mid-42). I dont have the game saved or I would post a screen shot.

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Is night air combat broken? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.186