BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
I'd like to start this thread to continue a discussion 1EyedJacks and I have been having about B-17s in the early war, particularly as I'm seeing a different side of the same stick in my 1945 game. I'd like to invite anyone to contribute as 1EyedJacks in particular wants to build up a picture of others' experience with 4-engined bombers both commanding and opposing them.
I'll start by putting my views on them down as a starting point and also suggest some possible solutions and pitfalls of others I've heard.
1. Bomber durability for four-engined bombers is very high such that it is extremely difficult indeed to down them unless you have multiple cannons ( 4 x 20mm is best, 2 x 20mm will simply not do the job ).
2. Bomber defensive armament has the same accuracy as front-mounted weapons on fighters. What this means is that all bomber defensive positions have the same chance of hitting your fighter as your fighter does of hitting them with front-mounted weapons. What this often results in is a fighter which is damaged by bomber fire before it ever gets into position to fire.
3. In recent raids in 1942 on Singapore my B-17s have been getting 10:1 + kill rates vs fighters. Admittedly most of these fighters are Oscars armed with MGs but while I don't doubt the B-17s should survive such peashooters I'm not sure a 10:1 kill ratio is right either. Right now the B-17s are my best fighters.
4. Once the Japanese get a good number of cannon-armed fighters available they WILL mob and take down B-17s, 24s and -29s. When cannon-armed fighters meet 300 B29s on 1:1 terms in 1945 I reasonably expect 30 to 40 B29s to be shot down ( if unescorted ). That seems fairly reasonable to me. If anything it seems a bit low actually but more of that anon.
Basically B-17s, 24 and 29s tend to be able to destroy too large a number of enemy fighters and this is ahistorical. Personally I feel their lack of vulnerability to FlAK is pretty reasonable as is their survivability vs multiple MG-armed fighters. I do balk at seeing those fighters shot down in droves though. I don't remember that happening in the war.
Given that bomber durability and armour is, IMO, something which would impact on FlAK losses etc and since FlAK seems to be working reasonably well ( IMO ) I don't want a fix which changes FlAK losses. Neither do I want a fix which makes B-17s etc less resistant to damage. I do, however, want them to stop shooting down attacking fighters in droves.
It seems to me that defensive armament comes in three forms:
1. Stabilised, purpose-built turrets with reasonable aiming aids.
2. A gun sticking through a window with little aiming or stabilisation except that given by its mounting in the window. ( semi-stabilised )
3. A gun sticking out the side of the plane with no stabilisation at all ( B17 side guns ).
It seems fairly evident to me that the accuracy of those 3 gun stations wouldn't be the same. The fully stabilised would be better than the other two and the gun sticking out a door would be worst. In-game though they all have the same accuracy as calibrated guns firing from the wings of a fighter.
|Previously I posted a fairly detailed account of weight of fire put out by various fighter types in WW2 to explain why some were so much better at taking down B-17s. Basically it worked out that an Fw-190A8/R1 could put out as much fire in 2 seconds as a Ki-43 II would put out in about 45 seconds. Obviously your odds of being hit by return fire in 45 seconds of firing were much greater than in a 2 second burst etc etc.
So, in EA Armaggedon ( which should be popping out in a day or two ) I have adopted the following Ks to accuracy :
1. Stabilised ( All B-29 turrets, top and ball and tail turrets in the B-17 etc ) Accuracy is halved.
2. Partially stabilised ( rear-mounted guns fired by the rear gunners in Vals, Kates or the bombardier guns in the early B-17s ) Accuracy reduced by 3/4.
3. Unstabilised guns ( side guns on B17s etc ) Accuracy reduced by 7/8s.
You can still get weight of fire forcing planes to turn away but now you don't get nearly so many attacking planes going down in flames because of damage before they ever get into firing position.
Over time it results in a lot more firing passes by planes, lots of accuring damage to four-engined bombers and lots more opportunities for them to hit back at fighters. Fighters DO still go down but no longer do they go down before they even get a shot off. Overall I think casualties rise a bit for the bombers and stay reasonably similar for the fighters but it has a more "realistic" feel to it - I know that isn't a great arbiter but you know what I mean.
In terms of keeping bomber squadrons flying and hitting the target.
High LAND attack skill and Inspiration are essential as are spare planes. With spare planes in the unit you might be able to get an 8 plane squadron ( with 2 reserves ) to fly daily with 5 planes instead of being consigned to having only 3 planes serviceable after the first day's mission. That slight increase in reserves results in a significantly larger increase in power at the tip of the spear.
I'll start by putting my views on them down as a starting point and also suggest some possible solutions and pitfalls of others I've heard.
1. Bomber durability for four-engined bombers is very high such that it is extremely difficult indeed to down them unless you have multiple cannons ( 4 x 20mm is best, 2 x 20mm will simply not do the job ).
2. Bomber defensive armament has the same accuracy as front-mounted weapons on fighters. What this means is that all bomber defensive positions have the same chance of hitting your fighter as your fighter does of hitting them with front-mounted weapons. What this often results in is a fighter which is damaged by bomber fire before it ever gets into position to fire.
3. In recent raids in 1942 on Singapore my B-17s have been getting 10:1 + kill rates vs fighters. Admittedly most of these fighters are Oscars armed with MGs but while I don't doubt the B-17s should survive such peashooters I'm not sure a 10:1 kill ratio is right either. Right now the B-17s are my best fighters.
4. Once the Japanese get a good number of cannon-armed fighters available they WILL mob and take down B-17s, 24s and -29s. When cannon-armed fighters meet 300 B29s on 1:1 terms in 1945 I reasonably expect 30 to 40 B29s to be shot down ( if unescorted ). That seems fairly reasonable to me. If anything it seems a bit low actually but more of that anon.
Basically B-17s, 24 and 29s tend to be able to destroy too large a number of enemy fighters and this is ahistorical. Personally I feel their lack of vulnerability to FlAK is pretty reasonable as is their survivability vs multiple MG-armed fighters. I do balk at seeing those fighters shot down in droves though. I don't remember that happening in the war.
Given that bomber durability and armour is, IMO, something which would impact on FlAK losses etc and since FlAK seems to be working reasonably well ( IMO ) I don't want a fix which changes FlAK losses. Neither do I want a fix which makes B-17s etc less resistant to damage. I do, however, want them to stop shooting down attacking fighters in droves.
It seems to me that defensive armament comes in three forms:
1. Stabilised, purpose-built turrets with reasonable aiming aids.
2. A gun sticking through a window with little aiming or stabilisation except that given by its mounting in the window. ( semi-stabilised )
3. A gun sticking out the side of the plane with no stabilisation at all ( B17 side guns ).
It seems fairly evident to me that the accuracy of those 3 gun stations wouldn't be the same. The fully stabilised would be better than the other two and the gun sticking out a door would be worst. In-game though they all have the same accuracy as calibrated guns firing from the wings of a fighter.
|Previously I posted a fairly detailed account of weight of fire put out by various fighter types in WW2 to explain why some were so much better at taking down B-17s. Basically it worked out that an Fw-190A8/R1 could put out as much fire in 2 seconds as a Ki-43 II would put out in about 45 seconds. Obviously your odds of being hit by return fire in 45 seconds of firing were much greater than in a 2 second burst etc etc.
So, in EA Armaggedon ( which should be popping out in a day or two ) I have adopted the following Ks to accuracy :
1. Stabilised ( All B-29 turrets, top and ball and tail turrets in the B-17 etc ) Accuracy is halved.
2. Partially stabilised ( rear-mounted guns fired by the rear gunners in Vals, Kates or the bombardier guns in the early B-17s ) Accuracy reduced by 3/4.
3. Unstabilised guns ( side guns on B17s etc ) Accuracy reduced by 7/8s.
You can still get weight of fire forcing planes to turn away but now you don't get nearly so many attacking planes going down in flames because of damage before they ever get into firing position.
Over time it results in a lot more firing passes by planes, lots of accuring damage to four-engined bombers and lots more opportunities for them to hit back at fighters. Fighters DO still go down but no longer do they go down before they even get a shot off. Overall I think casualties rise a bit for the bombers and stay reasonably similar for the fighters but it has a more "realistic" feel to it - I know that isn't a great arbiter but you know what I mean.
In terms of keeping bomber squadrons flying and hitting the target.
High LAND attack skill and Inspiration are essential as are spare planes. With spare planes in the unit you might be able to get an 8 plane squadron ( with 2 reserves ) to fly daily with 5 planes instead of being consigned to having only 3 planes serviceable after the first day's mission. That slight increase in reserves results in a significantly larger increase in power at the tip of the spear.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
I agree. My Oscars IIc, Nicks, Tonys, and Tojo can not shoot any down. Might be lucky and shoot one down every three or four months. [:@] Meanwhile my land forces are being torn up. [:(]
Lucky for you, tonight it's just me
Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !!
http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/
Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !!
http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/
- Disco Duck
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:25 pm
- Location: San Antonio
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
First off. If you are attacking a BUFF you are probably getting shot at from multiple angles. Not only from the plane you are attacking but the other planes in the formation. I don't know how you would model that.
I haven't done a lot of reading on the B-17 in a long time but I seem to recall Japanese fighters ignoring bomber formations as much as they can. In one of my old books there was a story of a B17 on a recon mission being attacked by five fighters and still making it home in one piece.
I think a better fix if not allowing the Japanese fighters to attack a bomber formation unless they have a high skill and a good commander.
I did find this comment from the Boeing site " in the Pacific, the planes earned a deadly reputation with the Japanese, who dubbed them "four-engine fighters."
I haven't done a lot of reading on the B-17 in a long time but I seem to recall Japanese fighters ignoring bomber formations as much as they can. In one of my old books there was a story of a B17 on a recon mission being attacked by five fighters and still making it home in one piece.
I think a better fix if not allowing the Japanese fighters to attack a bomber formation unless they have a high skill and a good commander.
I did find this comment from the Boeing site " in the Pacific, the planes earned a deadly reputation with the Japanese, who dubbed them "four-engine fighters."
There is no point in believing in things that exist. -Didactylos
- Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Agree totally. What is a BUFF though?
- CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: scott1964
I agree. My Oscars IIc, Nicks, Tonys, and Tojo can not shoot any down. Might be lucky and shoot one down every three or four months. [:@] Meanwhile my land forces are being torn up. [:(]
I guess you need to try harder. Just ask my opponent: he has lost lots of 4E bombers. Before the Franks and Georges showed up, Nicks and Tojos (I never built any Oscars after the Tojo came on line) were often causing 10% casualties. Now, if the airfield is not thoroughly swept (and I mean thoroughly) ahead of time, Georges, Tojos and Franks can easily cause 20-30% casualties against B-24s. (B-17s are tougher - more durability)
Also, I am not seeing too many kills by 4E bombers now. A6M2s would die rather often, but they only had a durability of 22. My Nicks didn't die and because of their high durability kept on firing even after taking damage.
Nemo: check your ops report. What you may be seeing when you lose fighters to B-29s are pilots deliberately ramming the bomber.
-
- Posts: 8505
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Agree totally. What is a BUFF though?
Big Ugly Fat F(ellow)
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
ORIGINAL: scott1964
I agree. My Oscars IIc, Nicks, Tonys, and Tojo can not shoot any down. Might be lucky and shoot one down every three or four months. [:@] Meanwhile my land forces are being torn up. [:(]
I guess you need to try harder. Just ask my opponent: he has lost lots of 4E bombers. Before the Franks and Georges showed up, Nicks and Tojos (I never built any Oscars after the Tojo came on line) were often causing 10% casualties. Now, if the airfield is not thoroughly swept (and I mean thoroughly) ahead of time, Georges, Tojos and Franks can easily cause 20-30% casualties against B-24s. (B-17s are tougher - more durability)
Also, I am not seeing too many kills by 4E bombers now. A6M2s would die rather often, but they only had a durability of 22. My Nicks didn't die and because of their high durability kept on firing even after taking damage.
Nemo: check your ops report. What you may be seeing when you lose fighters to B-29s are pilots deliberately ramming the bomber.
Yeah, when I first read this thread I thought "you need some schooling from my opponent!" [X(]
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Agree totally. What is a BUFF though?
Big Ugly Fat F(ellow)
[/quote
Close[;)][:D]
- 1EyedJacks
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: Reno, NV
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 19
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11
Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 3
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
64th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead
264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (11 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I literally have 40 aircraft in the air against 3 B-17s... That's a 13:1 ratio. The 4Es are coming in @ 8k. My fighters are @ 12k so they have the bounce. I also have 3 Heavy AA units @ Singapore. The raid is spotted about 10 minutes out. They successfully made their bombing run - they just didn't hit anything. The result is two B-17s damaged...
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...
I'm less sure about the AAA fire... There are only 3 bombers. Each of my AA units has 18 75mm flak guns - that's 18 guns per bomber... But I *think* large guns really can't aim @ a B-17 coming in @ 8k. I'm pretty sure in WWII they laid "curtains of fire" with deflection/quadrant settings to lay fire missions to cover specific targets. This would be much like haveing presets for priority targets. 54 tubes (and that's just the heavy stuff) makes a pretty nice curtain...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 19
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11
Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 3
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
CAP engaged:
84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
64th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead
264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (11 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I literally have 40 aircraft in the air against 3 B-17s... That's a 13:1 ratio. The 4Es are coming in @ 8k. My fighters are @ 12k so they have the bounce. I also have 3 Heavy AA units @ Singapore. The raid is spotted about 10 minutes out. They successfully made their bombing run - they just didn't hit anything. The result is two B-17s damaged...
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...
I'm less sure about the AAA fire... There are only 3 bombers. Each of my AA units has 18 75mm flak guns - that's 18 guns per bomber... But I *think* large guns really can't aim @ a B-17 coming in @ 8k. I'm pretty sure in WWII they laid "curtains of fire" with deflection/quadrant settings to lay fire missions to cover specific targets. This would be much like haveing presets for priority targets. 54 tubes (and that's just the heavy stuff) makes a pretty nice curtain...
TTFN,
Mike
Mike
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...
Does the part I bolded matter?
The Moose
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: bigred
http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html
Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this.
Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game...
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...
Does the part I bolded matter?
Maybe big ones or any planes should not fly at all when there's severe storms...
- 1EyedJacks
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: Reno, NV
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
What really provided defense for the B-17s were combat formations. the early ones were combat "boxes" that provided interlocking zones of coverage and would allow the opportunity for several bombers to attack targets simaltaniously. These bomber formations still took losses (sometimes heavy losses) which was why the US was so keen on coming up with a good escort fighter.
Here is a fairly good link that I found in regards to formations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_box
I really don't have too much heartache over large groups of bombers taking limited losses. To me that is consistant with defensive strategies that were used in WWII. But a lot of those B-17s that returned to their home field wound up in the bone-yard to be stripped for parts...
I just have some questions in regards to the mechanics of the game...
What are reasonable "operations losses" for 4E bombers? Does the Service Rating (4 for B-17s) feel "right" for how quickly damaged bombers are repaired and returned to service?
When Navigators are making the bombing run should not AAA be more effective? My AA units seem to "slooooooowly" increase the experience levels... Is this observation shared by other players? I assume EXP has an effect on AAA fire... It does - doesn't it?
How
Here is a fairly good link that I found in regards to formations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_box
I really don't have too much heartache over large groups of bombers taking limited losses. To me that is consistant with defensive strategies that were used in WWII. But a lot of those B-17s that returned to their home field wound up in the bone-yard to be stripped for parts...
I just have some questions in regards to the mechanics of the game...
What are reasonable "operations losses" for 4E bombers? Does the Service Rating (4 for B-17s) feel "right" for how quickly damaged bombers are repaired and returned to service?
When Navigators are making the bombing run should not AAA be more effective? My AA units seem to "slooooooowly" increase the experience levels... Is this observation shared by other players? I assume EXP has an effect on AAA fire... It does - doesn't it?
How
TTFN,
Mike
Mike
- 1EyedJacks
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: Reno, NV
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84
Weather in hex: Severe storms
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...
Does the part I bolded matter?
All I can say is that the combat simulations took a looooong time for this attack so I assume most of those 40 fighters flying CAP got in several attacks. Most of the messages were to the effect of "Oscar/Nick driven away by defensive fire." I often see fighter leave a fight because they are out of ammo. Has anyone ever seen a bomber run out of ammo?
I would think that even with pea-shooters those Oscars at 10:1 odds against the bombers should make an aweful lot of small dents/holes in those planes... The Nicks are about 3:1 and should be able to put much bigger holes in those 4E bombers if they can attack without being driven away. Andthen there are the 3 AAA units @ the base that should have engaged the 3 bombers...
TTFN,
Mike
Mike
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
That 4E bombers are ahistorically overpowered is a fact. The best that pre-B-29 bombers achieved against Japanese fighters was in battles of B-24s against Ki-43s (both flying in small formations, with fighters usually outnumbered) in Burma, with loss ratio of roughly 1:1. Against the same Ki-43s when the latter had numerical superiority of several to one in a few engagements, B-24s were massacred. This just doesn't happen in AE.
Whether this is needed to balance the game, I don't know.
Whether this is needed to balance the game, I don't know.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
- 1EyedJacks
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: Reno, NV
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
It seems to me that defensive armament comes in three forms:
1. Stabilised, purpose-built turrets with reasonable aiming aids.
2. A gun sticking through a window with little aiming or stabilisation except that given by its mounting in the window. ( semi-stabilised )
3. A gun sticking out the side of the plane with no stabilisation at all ( B17 side guns ).
The 50 cal manual sites are really bogus. I don't know if you've ever fired a 50 before but you don't really "aim" it like a rifle - instead you point in the general direction and "walk" your fire into the target. With tracer rounds it's pretty easy to do against a stationary target (from personal experience). It gets more difficult if you are manning a gun against a moving target while in a vehicle. I can't imagine it's any better in a B-17...
There are other factors at play in operating a 50 cal... The barrels get hot fast so you have to fire in fairly short bursts. Ammo was in short supply (see these stats - http://www.b17.org/history/specs.asp ). Now I'm pretty sure most crews kept spare belt ammo for the waist guns but I don't *think* a gunner can add/replace ammo for the nose and tail turrets... 5,000 rounds of 50 Cal ammo is probably around 500 lbs...
I would think crew experience on a B-17 would be a bigger factor in achieving the kind of defensive fire that would "drive away" an enemy fighter...
TTFN,
Mike
Mike
- 1EyedJacks
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: Reno, NV
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
From http://www.b17.org/history/specs.asp - Between 1935 and May of 1945, 12,732 B-17s were produced. Of these aircraft, 4,735 were lost during combat missions.
so about 1/3 were lost in combat missions. That's not (if I read this correctly) inclusive of those B-17s that returned safely to their base but had taken so much damge they were scrapped for parts...
so about 1/3 were lost in combat missions. That's not (if I read this correctly) inclusive of those B-17s that returned safely to their base but had taken so much damge they were scrapped for parts...
TTFN,
Mike
Mike
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Puhis
ORIGINAL: bigred
http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html
Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this.
Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game...
Change to - Martin Caiden's book, Samurai.
You will always get extremes on both sides, there is always a "die roll" affecting the result plus so many modifiers that you cant guaratee the same result twice in a row.
I like Nemo121's approach, it would be good to see how it pans out.
Another thought is to increase the servicing rate for B17 and early B24, it seems it took a year + to get them in the air in numbers, until then, except for rare occasions, raids consisted of only 3-6 aircraft.
PS The real BUFF was the B52.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Nemo analysis is quite right -- I caught myself misusing the B-17 in 1942 not only to close AI airfields, but essentially sweep them. I was wondering whether the experience of the B-17 sqrns should be lowered at the start of the game as well. As far as I recall from any of the books and reports I read, McArthur employed the Fortresses in the first two years primarily for (naval) recon, and much less for airfield bombing, right? Now, why was that?
I think the modification you propose, Nemo, might be quite well on the mark. The only drawback will be for AI, which all the time sends its Netties, Bettys, Fortresses and other bombers with ranges >> than any escort fighter on unescorted suicide missions to targets it should know to be CAPped -- against a human player this would only result in much worse slaughter unless the AI routines are improved. However, that is no reason not to fix the above disparity, though.
I think the modification you propose, Nemo, might be quite well on the mark. The only drawback will be for AI, which all the time sends its Netties, Bettys, Fortresses and other bombers with ranges >> than any escort fighter on unescorted suicide missions to targets it should know to be CAPped -- against a human player this would only result in much worse slaughter unless the AI routines are improved. However, that is no reason not to fix the above disparity, though.