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: Current thinking on HR for night bombing

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 2:08:05 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1670
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
I know Wiki is often not the best source but here is their article about night bombers (it names only 3 types, Wellingtons, Whitley and B29s later.). But seems I was wrong above and Wellington was not meant (at least early) as a night bomber:

quote:

Interwar period and World War II
As aircraft capabilities grew, so did their defensive firepower. By the mid-1930s, opinions were changing and the idea of daylight raids of aircraft providing their own self-defense came to the fore. In practice these aircraft proved entirely vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft and were rapidly returned to the night bombing role. However, these aircraft had not been designed for night navigation, and were generally lacking any effectiveness in these missions:

I don't think we realized at the time that our equipment wasn't really up to it. They'd forgotten to design or produce any navigation equipment, so the Wellington bomber, which was intended to be a day bomber, had to operate at night because it was so vulnerable during the day. It had virtually the same equipment that the Tiger Moth had, with one exception—the Wellington had a loop aerial. Here we were flying 500 or 600 miles over enemy territory, trying to locate a target in total blackout, often with cloud below us and a lot of industrial haze. It's not surprising that our bombers were 5, 10 miles away. There was no bomber stream. We were largely on our own, perhaps 10 or 14 aircraft at intervals.

—John Gee, Bomber Command pilot[2]
The USAAF was the only force to press ahead with daylight strategic bombing raids during World War II. This proved as disastrous as the earlier Royal Air Force and Luftwaffe attempts, and had to be called off in late 1943. The arrival of the P-51 Mustang fighter in the "bomber escort" role allowed these missions to start again in 1944, and the fighter was so successful that the Luftwaffe fighter force was largely wiped out by the end of spring. Attrition of the Luftwaffe was so great that the RAF was also able to take to the daylight skies later that year.

The USAAF also applied the same concept with the bombing raids against Japan in June 1944-early 1945 with daylight precision bombing against Japanese industrial facilities using Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers. However, the results weren't successful because of the frequent jetstream blowing the high explosives off target, navigation problems, anti-aircraft fire, and searchlights, resulting in high losses among the B-29 crewmen. As a result, in February 1945, the USAAF switched to low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities, most of them took place at night. The most devastating air raid in the war was the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9–10, 1945, which destroyed 16 square miles, killed 100,000 Japanese, and made a million people homeless.[3][4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_bomber

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/13/2019 2:11:04 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 31
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 5:55:44 PM   
pontiouspilot


Posts: 1020
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline
In my PBEM as Japan my opponent and I just banned night 4 eng bombing of all but cities. We both agreed that the stunning damage was frightfully unrealistic. I personally will extend that to 2 eng raids also. We were both painfully aware of the futility of such raids in real life.

(in reply to mmoaorrke)
Post #: 32
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 7:59:12 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13114
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

In my PBEM as Japan my opponent and I just banned night 4 eng bombing of all but cities. We both agreed that the stunning damage was frightfully unrealistic. I personally will extend that to 2 eng raids also. We were both painfully aware of the futility of such raids in real life.


Like so many things, it depends ....
A couple of years ago there was a discussion of Catalina operations at night and someone posted a link to the operations of the RL "Black Cats". One remarkable story was how they wreaked havoc on an IJ airfield in the Solomons at night. Allied air superiority shut down IJ airfields during the day so the Japanese conducted repairs at night using lights from vehicle and some lighting units attached to generators. The Cats came in low and bombed the construction troops, their vehicles and then the light-providing vehicles and generators before the Japanese could turn them off.

If Cats with a few small bombs and Para-frags could do that, it is not inconceivable for HBs in good moonlight to make good attacks. Just have lead aircraft drop flares over the target.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to pontiouspilot)
Post #: 33
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 8:05:40 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6927
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Why is it that so many players are A-OK with the overpowered capabilities of the Japanese side, but constantly want to reign in the overpowered capabilities of the Allied side?

If you hamstring the Allies by preventing them from shutting down air fields by night bombing, why are you not also restricting the use of Netties beyond fighter escort range, which is typically used to shut down naval movement without air cover?

Why are all of the overpowered Japanese capabilities OK?

Why does only the Allied side need to be reigned in?

Why are so many hypocrites playing this game?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 34
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 9:50:51 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13114
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Why is it that so many players are A-OK with the overpowered capabilities of the Japanese side, but constantly want to reign in the overpowered capabilities of the Allied side?

If you hamstring the Allies by preventing them from shutting down air fields by night bombing, why are you not also restricting the use of Netties beyond fighter escort range, which is typically used to shut down naval movement without air cover?

Why are all of the overpowered Japanese capabilities OK?

Why does only the Allied side need to be reigned in?

Why are so many hypocrites playing this game?

Easy Hans, that last remark was uncalled for. If they want to negotiate away some capabilities to keep their opponent playing longer, that's their choice to make. The game experience is in the player's experience and they do not have to have the same passion for historic or "as programmed" play as you do. Pointing out the impact of such HRs is fine, dissing the players choices is not.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 35
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 10:15:59 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2464
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
Instead of building Petes, build more Jakes. It has a longer range, makes for an excellent scout FP, and it gets radar later. So where is Gary Burgoff until then?

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 36
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/13/2019 11:38:22 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 344
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I know Wiki is often not the best source but here is their article about night bombers (it names only 3 types, Wellingtons, Whitley and B29s later.). But seems I was wrong above and Wellington was not meant (at least early) as a night bomber:

quote:

Interwar period and World War II
As aircraft capabilities grew, so did their defensive firepower. By the mid-1930s, opinions were changing and the idea of daylight raids of aircraft providing their own self-defense came to the fore. In practice these aircraft proved entirely vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft and were rapidly returned to the night bombing role. However, these aircraft had not been designed for night navigation, and were generally lacking any effectiveness in these missions:

I don't think we realized at the time that our equipment wasn't really up to it. They'd forgotten to design or produce any navigation equipment, so the Wellington bomber, which was intended to be a day bomber, had to operate at night because it was so vulnerable during the day. It had virtually the same equipment that the Tiger Moth had, with one exception—the Wellington had a loop aerial. Here we were flying 500 or 600 miles over enemy territory, trying to locate a target in total blackout, often with cloud below us and a lot of industrial haze. It's not surprising that our bombers were 5, 10 miles away. There was no bomber stream. We were largely on our own, perhaps 10 or 14 aircraft at intervals.

—John Gee, Bomber Command pilot[2]
The USAAF was the only force to press ahead with daylight strategic bombing raids during World War II. This proved as disastrous as the earlier Royal Air Force and Luftwaffe attempts, and had to be called off in late 1943. The arrival of the P-51 Mustang fighter in the "bomber escort" role allowed these missions to start again in 1944, and the fighter was so successful that the Luftwaffe fighter force was largely wiped out by the end of spring. Attrition of the Luftwaffe was so great that the RAF was also able to take to the daylight skies later that year.

The USAAF also applied the same concept with the bombing raids against Japan in June 1944-early 1945 with daylight precision bombing against Japanese industrial facilities using Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers. However, the results weren't successful because of the frequent jetstream blowing the high explosives off target, navigation problems, anti-aircraft fire, and searchlights, resulting in high losses among the B-29 crewmen. As a result, in February 1945, the USAAF switched to low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities, most of them took place at night. The most devastating air raid in the war was the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9–10, 1945, which destroyed 16 square miles, killed 100,000 Japanese, and made a million people homeless.[3][4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_bomber


No aircraft used operationally in WWII was "designed" for night bombing; some were adapted for it with additional equipment, while most were simply assigned to night missions. Even the Halifax and Lancaster were intended for daylight operations, but their light defensive armament would have made such missions over Germany suicidal in 1943-44.

There are a number of problems with that Wikipedia article, probably due to a lack of good sources cited.

The 8th AF did not halt daylight precision raids after the Oct 14, 1943 Schweinfurt mission; it simply restricted raids in Germany to the Ruhr region and Bremen, which were within range of P-38s and P-47s. When the 354th FG and its P-51s became operational in Dec 1943, the 8th AF again ranged further into Germany, although raids were few through the end of February because of unusually bad weather.

The 20th and 21st Bomber Commands never halted daylight precision raids over Japan; instead, they interspersed them with night incendiary raids which were much more effective. Daylight precision raids had to continue because the supply of incendiary bombs could not keep up with the pace of their use. From early 1945 until the end of the war, daylight raids were typically carried out from 20,000 to 25,000 feet (just as in Europe), rather than 27-30,000 feet. This improved accuracy and since most of the Japanese fighters available for Home defense didn't perform all that well above 20,000, losses to the unescorted B-29s were acceptable (compared to Europe).

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 37
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 7:51:04 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2473
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Hi,
Carefully with the radar rule - because usually the British GR (General Reconnaissance) planes used for Naval Search have them (ASV-type) while regular night bombers do not. Unfortunately there is no real Air-to-Ground radar (although later ASV Marks were adapted to that - but even the radar bombing usually required some specific landmarks like distinct coastline features, big rivers or lakes).

I would go for using real night bombers for the night strategic bombing (Cities, industry, etc):
Wellington Ic
Wellington B.X
Liberator II
Liberator B.III
Liberator B.VI
Lancaster B1.FE (No Spcl version, the Grand Slam was used during the day!)
Lincoln B.1
Mosquito B.35
B-29B Superfortress

Plus some planes equipped with radar (check the exact Nation/versions) for Night search/Night Naval attack/Night Port Attack:
PBY Catalina
PB2Y Coronado
PB4Y Liberator/Privateer
PBJ Mitchell
PBM Mariner
PV-1 Ventura
PV-2 Harpoon
TBF/TBM Avenger
Hudson (some marks)
Swordfish/Albacore
Wellington GR.VIII/XIII
Liberator GR.III/VI
Sunderland

As for the Japan I would probably go for similar principle - most of the heavy/medium bombers could be used for strategic targets, while some planes equipped with radar could be used effectively on Night Naval/Port attack. (e.g. Netties etc could be used even before the radar is active, but their successes would be minimal.

BTW - you should be allowed to bomb disregarding the Moon conditions - the results are usually related to that :D (0% Moonlight with severe storm will probably result in 0 hits anyway). IRL RAF Bombers used Moonless nights for operations over Germany - as the moonlight increased visibility and interception probabilities thus resulting in higher losses to the bomber crews.

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 38
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 9:13:02 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3853
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Imagine if the code simply punished every pilot attempting a night bombing attack with a 30-40 points malus to pilot's GndSkill during the bomb run.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 39
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 9:57:14 AM   
jdsrae


Posts: 614
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: The Land Downunder
Status: offline
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Imagine if the code
simply punished every pilot

attempting a night bombing attack
with a 30-40 points

malus to pilot's GndSkill
during the bomb run.


Might need to tweak the tune a bit for it to work




_____________________________

Follow the Sapper

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 40
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 11:15:52 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1670
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Why is it that so many players are A-OK with the overpowered capabilities of the Japanese side, but constantly want to reign in the overpowered capabilities of the Allied side?

If you hamstring the Allies by preventing them from shutting down air fields by night bombing, why are you not also restricting the use of Netties beyond fighter escort range, which is typically used to shut down naval movement without air cover?




I do not see these "Netties" are overpowered... Are you not aware that planes (of any type also without escort) tend to run into CAP ? In no game I have seen that "Netties" have super senses and know were enemy CAP planes are... avoid them completly and strike only undefended targets ? If this is the case in your game it must be some other version or scenario. There are some scens out which "bump up" the Japanese side unhistorically that is true.

Scen2 also gives IJ some more stuff (a complete series of DDs 12 or so, 2 more CLs but which are not as good as Allied ones, more raw materials and a fictional 21th army group, few more factories also I believe..). However it still can be defended as in the realm of possible if the Japanese had better planning years before the war started). The only "overpowering" one can name is the research and production system, but it is also not magical it needs raw materials like in real life. If you suffer from resources/oil shortage the "superpower" IJ production system will break down, simply.

I had severall strikes (one due to my mistake, the others cause KB was scarred of some YMS and PT boats, reversed its course and ended up in range of the Allied super duper base complex in the Salomones) of torpedo and dive bombers slaughtered (all in all 50-60 planes) in the last weeks of game. Strangely they did not avoid the cap and "shut down naval movement without air cover". So must be different game or scen you are playing. But I see that often that convusion arrises with all the different scens now are available, so you are excused for that.

I would say the Allies are more able to do such LR strikes, simply because their planes are more durable and have better defenses. B17s and B24s can fight their way through many weaker CAP planes (eg. Oscars, early Zeros, early Jack) try that with "Netties". Also the "Netties" are unable to shoot everything down themselves, while 4Es can get even aces I read in AARs that not even the better armed later IJ planes fare better. This is strange and some (not me) specualte that Allied planes might get a bonus in defensive fire compared to IJ defensive bomber fire...

Disclaimer: If one plays the AI it might be that such "super senses" may exist, I have noticed this in regards to air warfare, that the AI seems to know were planes are on CAP or not. Eg. you just transfer fighter planes or put them on 100% rest or training the AI strikes these airfields without CAP. When you put a strong CAP up again they will stop attacking...but that applies to both sides, so.... OTH the AI of course will send unescorted strikes one after the other into CAP... lol

But if you have a recipe how this supersense works for "Netties" in game for you, you will proably not tell us, right ? But I take your proposal so I will NOT use superpowered Netties without escorts in exchange for no night bombing in 1943.

And btw2. if one searches the forum for night bombing, NOT AEGIS/laser guided powered Netties come up, but almost everytime Allied 4Es and also some Allied 2Es....strange, eh?

But if Hans says I can use those Netties without escort and they will eliminate ship traffic I can safely set those to nav attack eg. in the Salomones where the Allies have perhaps 300 fighters at those bases there ? The Netties will avoid them and annihalate shipping? As said I was not thinking this was possible but I am quite a newbie still in PBM and the IJ side (only 1 game vs. AI years ago). Can I trust this advise by Hans and do other players have the same experience ?

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/14/2019 1:36:42 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 41
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 11:39:46 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1670
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Instead of building Petes, build more Jakes. It has a longer range, makes for an excellent scout FP, and it gets radar later. So where is Gary Burgoff until then?


I am building Jakes and slowly was upgrading other floats to them. But as one can read above Petes may work as a night cap. The Jake has only 1 MG to the rear, while Petes have 2 MGs at the front. Also Pete is fastest of the floatplanes, I did not know however they work on night CAP. Perhaps Dave may also work ? It has 1 front and 1 rear MG and has better dur but is sloooowww.

One must think out of the box it seems re. night bombing that show severall posts on this topic. Using cheap floats at night is one of this it seems. For sure one would better not have expensive SR3 fighters as night CAP when it is said that many are shot down at night anyway. I do not know so I can only learn from others here.


But still even at day eg. Allies sweeps are stronger it seems, as the game rates speed and armament over manouvre clearly. And the more durable, faster and better armed planes belong to the Allies. So I wonder here too, were the "overpowered Japanese capabilities" are? Hans for sure will enlighten us - but clearly he is not playing scen2 so his insights can only be true for the scen or version he plays regulary.

So can some more players confirm that "Netties" do not need escort and they avoid cap and sink ships en´masse ? I do not want to try this out tbh in the current (PBM) game, as my losses for IJN were high enough already. But I might try when I start another game vs. the AI...


< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/14/2019 3:36:09 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 42
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 2:31:38 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1670
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
I found this good post by Pax Mondo:

quote:

I'm not sure that the night bombing is overpowered ... I think that the operational losses need to be higher, particularly with low experience units. I beleive it is too easy to get experienced units, so players take this route ahistorically. If the training losses were higher, this would discourage the use and get it more in line with what actually ocurred. Particularly for Allied players where their replacement rates are so low in the early war.

Allied night attacks were effective. BUT, the investment to get there was quite large. It does not appear to me that the requisite investment is being made in game. Right now, a player can get highly effective night bombing developed in '42. If the training losses (operational) were kicked up significantly, this would discourage this tactic until late war.

Let's use some current requirement here to get handle on this. Minimum requirements for most companies is 100 hours of night to even qualify for a job. That's going to take you 60 days if you fly every night to log that exp. Realistically, with weather and everything else, figure 120 days. You are now a green stick that allows you to sit in the right seat. 400 hours later they're going think you are ready to move into the left seat.

OK, there is a war on and so time compression is going to happen, but so are the operational losses. The above numbers would get you approximate daytime operational losses. In game, that is suggesting pilot exp of greater than 80% in night flying (is that even tracked?). Since the war is on, and you rush the training, your operational losses really have to get big for low hour pilots. Like 2% - 5% per mission or more.

You cannot overstate how difficult night VFR flying is. Any pilot will tell you: it is dangerous. What makes it so easy today is all the instruments and radar. However, there is still a lot of night VFR being done, and pilots are lost everyday to it. I work with +10,000 hour pilots who have to routinely fly night VFR. None of them would ever say it was easy. And every year, at least once a year, I have to go to a funeral.

My final thought on this topic is simple: if it were easy everyone would have gone to it in '42. The fact is that it didn't really catch on until '44. Sure the Brits were doing it from '40 onwards. But look at their numbers, the training involved, the pilot experience, their targets, their effectiveness ... GER, SOV, USA, JAP, ITA ... none of the other really picked it up until much later. It wasn't a fashion trend, it needed both time and technology to bring it up. Once units had effective radio guidance (amoung other items) to get them back home safely, night bombing came into being.


So even today night flying is dangerous. This is one of my main points, these attacks posted here were done the 1st time for these pilots. Yes they are good at day already but cannot just switch from day to night.

Simple suggestion for rules:

a) Every side and every plane from 1943 on can bomb MANPOWER at night (so called city or terror bombing)...this is historical and was possible
b) Only the UK can bomb tactical targets at night, starting in 43, both RN and RAF planes. Cause they have practiced it in Europe enough to carry over the experience to SEA theater... Min alt 10k
c) No naval or tac bombing at night in 41,42,43 for all other nations

d) Every side and every plane from 1944 on can bomb facilities (facs, oil, fuel etc.) at night
e) Navy planes 1944 on from any nation that has any form of radar can nav and tac bomb at night, 10k alt. This restricts the IJN side more, as they get radar much later

..the term tactical involves: troops, airbases+planes there, ships at sea or in port

.. this accounts for training (time), experience and technical developements (in night navigation for example) growing over time untill reaching practical and wide spread status during 1944...

Everyone can still ofc bomb facilities at day eg. the IJ oil fields or Allied HI at Singapore

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/14/2019 3:13:13 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 43
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 3:52:26 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1670
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
Btw. I searched the forum for "Betties overpowered".. strangely enough a post by Hans Bolter came up


quote:

Every time the JFBs start lamenting how overpowered 4Es are I feel compelled to step in an remind them of their own incredibly overpowered tool....Netties.

The effect they have in hindering naval movement behind the front lines for the Allies is incredible.
You can't move anything without air cover or Nettie drivers with 99 experience and 99 skill will put a fish into your ships 100% of the time.
If even one plane leaks through the CAP it is guaranteed to deliver a fish into a hull.

How many JFBs offer to nerf their Netties in compensation for that almost standard request for nerfing 4Es?


I just offered to "nerf" my Netties, not using them at night untill radar shows up...I guess he means night attacks by Netties? As in daytime I have seen them shot down in the hundreds (eg. in the Allied AI game but in DBB so perhaps they are "nerfed" already in this scen)
I would really suggest to Hans to try more historic scens without super duper Netties...as it seems to disturb him quite a bit judging from his 2 posts there and here.

Also this one by "Bullwinkle58", so he confirms basically that 4Es are "overpowered":

quote:

So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.



Another post by Hans, his response to someone who said, yes Netties were dangerous in the early war, eg. the Force Z attacks (which are well documented and it is true that Netties there hit quite good):

quote:

First time I have ever seen anyone on these forums attempt to defend overpowered Netties as historically accurate.

I can see you JFBs are firmly in denial that the game provides you with any overpowered tools that compensate for the one overpowered tool the Allies get.

Par for the course.


I wonder tho - if Hans is so concerned about game balance... what with the unhistoric weak Japanese AA.. I recently read an account from B25/P38 missions to Kavieng. And the low flying B25s received quite deadly and dense AA fire. In game IJ AA is not that strong compared to such Allied accounts. Also the 10cm gun is much too weak from this the entire Akitsuki class of DDs suffer. Just look at them, they even look modern like they could be still used in the 50ties.

Also Hans is playing probably a scen which corrects the wrong arrival dates of US tank destroyer (M10 but mainly M18 and M36 these arrive muuuuchhhh too early, the M36 arrived in Europe in end of 44!) Not to mention in some versions the Shermans are super duper :) And some IJ ships like the Tokiwa should have armor but have not.


Edit, found another post by Hans re. "Netties" but no one seemed to re-act to it and ignored him, strangely...

But here 2 more veteran players (Crsutton and Obvert) re. night bombing:

quote:

Exactly. We don't scrimp on our use of IJAAF 2E early against the hapless Chinese, Indians and Philippine troops, so it all comes around. Playing the Allies I asked for an HR self-imposing a restriction on 4E bombing ground troops only because I felt it was too easy in the clear hexes to mass them, but that was me choosing to restrict myself.

The HR I find more of a necessity is massed night bombing against fields/ports. The capacity of the time simply didn't allow accurate night bombing without extreme planning and training, and even then wasn't what happens in game. So best not to get either side frustrated and limit it to say 50 bombers set per target, or something similar.


A must. Our HR is only one unit per theater on a night bombing mission. It is just too whacked to allow any more.


< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/14/2019 5:20:05 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 44
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 5:24:16 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline
Been doing a little digging on historical night missions and trying to come up with game terms to allow them while keeping the night from being too deadly. Here's what I've got:

a. Night Fighters (not just any F unit assigned to night missions - game designated models) may fly any mission type except strategic bombing. (Allows for historical “intruder” missions, CAP, etc.)
b. Any aircraft may target manpower with strategic bombing (no other targets). (Allows for historical late-war city bombing.)
c. Aircraft with radar may fly naval attack and/or naval search. (Allows for historical “Black Cat” operations, RN and IJN night attacks.)
d. A maximum of one air group (the game term, not historical groups) per base AND a maximum of one air group per base targeted may make a port OR airfield attack (the port and airfield of a single base may not both be targeted on the same night). This includes any night fighters. (Allows for historical harassment missions.)

The limited number of night fighters and the 'one air group per night' limit should keep base damage down, and of course any night fighters you've got flying Ground *aren't* available to fly CAP over your own bases.

If this cuts out any non-unique historical missions I'd like to hear about them.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 45
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 6:52:55 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6927
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Btw. I searched the forum for "Betties overpowered".. strangely enough a post by Hans Bolter came up


quote:

Every time the JFBs start lamenting how overpowered 4Es are I feel compelled to step in an remind them of their own incredibly overpowered tool....Netties.

The effect they have in hindering naval movement behind the front lines for the Allies is incredible.
You can't move anything without air cover or Nettie drivers with 99 experience and 99 skill will put a fish into your ships 100% of the time.
If even one plane leaks through the CAP it is guaranteed to deliver a fish into a hull.

How many JFBs offer to nerf their Netties in compensation for that almost standard request for nerfing 4Es?


I just offered to "nerf" my Netties, not using them at night untill radar shows up...I guess he means night attacks by Netties? As in daytime I have seen them shot down in the hundreds (eg. in the Allied AI game but in DBB so perhaps they are "nerfed" already in this scen)
I would really suggest to Hans to try more historic scens without super duper Netties...as it seems to disturb him quite a bit judging from his 2 posts there and here.

Also this one by "Bullwinkle58", so he confirms basically that 4Es are "overpowered":

quote:

So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.



Another post by Hans, his response to someone who said, yes Netties were dangerous in the early war, eg. the Force Z attacks (which are well documented and it is true that Netties there hit quite good):

quote:

First time I have ever seen anyone on these forums attempt to defend overpowered Netties as historically accurate.

I can see you JFBs are firmly in denial that the game provides you with any overpowered tools that compensate for the one overpowered tool the Allies get.

Par for the course.


I wonder tho - if Hans is so concerned about game balance... what with the unhistoric weak Japanese AA.. I recently read an account from B25/P38 missions to Kavieng. And the low flying B25s received quite deadly and dense AA fire. In game IJ AA is not that strong compared to such Allied accounts. Also the 10cm gun is much too weak from this the entire Akitsuki class of DDs suffer. Just look at them, they even look modern like they could be still used in the 50ties.

Also Hans is playing probably a scen which corrects the wrong arrival dates of US tank destroyer (M10 but mainly M18 and M36 these arrive muuuuchhhh too early, the M36 arrived in Europe in end of 44!) Not to mention in some versions the Shermans are super duper :) And some IJ ships like the Tokiwa should have armor but have not.


Edit, found another post by Hans re. "Netties" but no one seemed to re-act to it and ignored him, strangely...

But here 2 more veteran players (Crsutton and Obvert) re. night bombing:

quote:

Exactly. We don't scrimp on our use of IJAAF 2E early against the hapless Chinese, Indians and Philippine troops, so it all comes around. Playing the Allies I asked for an HR self-imposing a restriction on 4E bombing ground troops only because I felt it was too easy in the clear hexes to mass them, but that was me choosing to restrict myself.

The HR I find more of a necessity is massed night bombing against fields/ports. The capacity of the time simply didn't allow accurate night bombing without extreme planning and training, and even then wasn't what happens in game. So best not to get either side frustrated and limit it to say 50 bombers set per target, or something similar.


A must. Our HR is only one unit per theater on a night bombing mission. It is just too whacked to allow any more.




I find the 'hard on' you have developed for me rather comical.
I'll be applying the Green Button.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 46
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 7:03:29 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1670
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I find the 'hard on' you have developed for me rather comical.
I'll be applying the Green Button.


It is not my fault that in the searches your simmilar sounding posts turn up...
But ok I apologize. I went overboard...and now you can bring on some hard evidence for your your statements and/or answer questions?

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/14/2019 7:05:13 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 47
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/14/2019 7:37:33 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2464
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
In my recent game, a Dutch improved B-10 (the 139WH) shot down an A6M2 flown from the Kaga . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 48
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/21/2019 3:46:19 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3929
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Alpha77, DDB changed from dropping single bombs to sticks of bombs, thus reducing chances to hit.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3032153


I'm playing DBB exclusively and I don't see any "bomb sticks".

To be sure, I just fired up the editor to compare Scen 1 with scen 28 v015 (latest version) - the bombers have the same loadout, e.g. B-17E carries eight individual "500 lb GP bomb" devices (device no. 203)i.e. eight bombs in both scenarios.

However, the "device" 203 show different stats - accuracy, penetration, effect, anti-armor and anti-soft values are lower in the DBB scenario (accuracy for example dropped from 25 to 21 and effect from 500 to 300).

So it seems the chances of a hit and the damage caused by a hit has been toned down - but DBB still retains the same "each bomb being aimed individually" mechanics, i.e. eight chances to get a hit.

"Bomb sticks" would mean that the planes carries for example only two devices named "4x 500 lb GP bombs" (i.e. eight bombs), with accuracy values etc. modified to what the scenario designer thinks best from his understanding of the game mechanics - therefore giving just two chances to obtain a hit with whatever the chosen values yield as effect.


I fully agree with the analysis posted by Barb.

In my experience Japanese night-fighters and AA are a nuisance at best, Allied bomber gunners and bombardiers have laser-aiming devices. OTOH Japanese night bombing is near-useless.

In my PBEM with IdahoNYer (DBB scenario) we have a house rule limiting night-bombing of port and airfields to one air unit in 1941/42, two in 1943, four in 1944 and I forgot how many in 1945. Will probably try to renegotiate to keep it at four - results are annoying enough. My opponents usually sends night-bombers at 2000 feet against my airfields. Last turn two strikes with just three B-29 per strike destroyed a total of 21 planes on the ground - happens time and again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 49
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/21/2019 4:01:58 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2157
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
I believe that it is the RHS series of mods that have bomb sticks.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 50
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/21/2019 4:17:38 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2464
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
LargeSlowTarget, I believe that you are mistaken. While some bombing raids did have individual bombs dropped on individual targets such as the Doolittle Raid, I believe that with the bomb sticks that each bomb would have a chance to hit but when one hit was made, the the chance for the next would go up until there is a miss. That is from what I have seen on documentaries.

As far as laser sights, the US Norden bomb sight was very sophisiticated. The British Lancaster was able to drop a bomb on a bulls-eye from 20,000 feet up while 2 miles away. That is where the camera was to film the bomb coming down. The camera did not survive the 5 ton bomb . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 51
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/21/2019 4:57:34 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3853
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
LargeSlowTarget, I have always believed that Symon used his dev dark arts to tweak the bomb sticks thing directly in the code. I do remember posts in DBB threads about the bomb sticks, by I cannot pinpot them now via Google search. I hope it is not a case of my memory tricking me from the get-go.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 52
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/22/2019 4:01:41 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3929
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
You are probably referring to https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3032153 and https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4366105

DBB is a scenario i.e. database mod, it does not contain changes to the .exe i.e. game engine - so I doubt that Symon "used his dev dark arts to tweak the bomb sticks thing directly in the code".

For the same reason I doubt the explanation of gradenko_2000_slith in his statement below is correct:

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000_slith

Bomb damage was modified by modelling bombs in "sticks" instead of as individual projectiles.

The way unmodded WITP-AE does it is that each individual bomb has its own individual hit-chance computed. This can result in bombing accuracy that is ahistorically high because if you drop several bombs in sequence, as in level bombing, either your entire stick of bombs is on-target, or it isn't.

The way DaBabes does it is that bombs are grouped together. If the bomb-run is on target, then the target suffers the damage equivalent to multiple bombs hitting it.


I don't see "bombs grouped together" in the DBB scenario files, as said above the load-out is the same, only the device values differ - and I don't see how this would change the way the game engine calculates hits.

As I understand, the game mechanics give each bomb a "dice roll" to see if it hits or not.

That means if a plane carries for example eight bombs, it has eight chances to obtain a hit, influenced by device accuracy, altitude, pilot experience, weather, CAP/AA and what else.

The algorithms "may" have a modifier which kicks in after a "hit - miss" sequence which then increases the probability for another miss in the dice rolls for the next bomb, in order to simulate "bomb sticks".

However, even with this modifier, the number of hits on "pinpoint target" seems still too high for large bomb-loads - large number of bombs seem to guarantee at least some hits for each bomber, the probability that a bomber misses with its entire bomb load seems very low.

Yet, IRL and despite the sophisticated Norden bomb-sight (btw, the Lancaster did use the British Mk. XIV bomb-sight, not the Norden), only a relatively small percentage of bombs dropped actually came close to the target point - I have read post-war analysis figures giving just 31% of bombs dropped actually hitting within 1000 feet of the aiming point on average. Due to poor results, the Eight AF stopped "precision bombing" and adopted "area bombing" with ever-increasing numbers of bombers, aiming to optimise the overlap of the "bomb carpet" dropped by the bomber formation with the target area. In other words

In my mod I'm experimenting with "sticks" (or "grouped") bombs for AF, port, naval and ground attacks in order to diminish the number of dice rolls, while retaining the overall number of bombs - eight bombs from the example above would be four devices of "2x bomb", thus giving only four chances to obtain a hit (and subject to the modifier of the code). However, city bombing retains the traditional "individually aimed bombs" since the results of area bombing seems ok.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 8/22/2019 4:02:37 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 53
RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing - 8/22/2019 5:09:36 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 2464
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
Yes, I agree with the area bombing and the difficulty of hitting pinpoint targets. I also know that the US did not give the Norden bomb sight to the British. But the British with the tallboys and such were accurate on pinpoint targets, but they weren't probably facing very intense flak knocking them about except when they bombed the Tirpitz.

What I don't think is modeled is the American bombers dropped their bombs when their leader dropped their bombs so each bomber did not drop theirs individually. This potentially could be more devastating or a complete miss.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 54
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Current thinking on HR for night bombing Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.191