Hello? chirp chirp anyone out there?

[Brooke]

Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method

More effective, yes.  Unrealistic, no.  Some torpedo bombers went the whole way down low, but that's a tactical decision.  It could be done differently, and in fact there were examples of torpedo bombers going in higher, diving down near target.  I can give you book references if you are truly interested in reading them -- please don't ask me to track it down though unless you do want to read them, as it's work for me.

[kilo2]

Honestly I don't think this day in WW2 events should be used in your data. Unless you are willing to use FSO data.


This day in ww2 is hugely different than scenario.

[Tank-Ace]

A6M's, according to the data, don't have a lot of trouble shooting down TBM's in the environment of the event.  Most of them are shot down every mission.

Loss rates of A6M's to TBM's, escorting fighters, etc.

That the TBM's die is not the only thing going into it.

Yes.

(Although, again, all of this arguing of fine points doesn't change the fact that the final result -- balance of the scenario -- is fine.)

If more TBM's survive to the attack run, its fair to say more are getting ordnance out. More ordnance = more points or objectives accomplished. Or at the very least a greater chance of this happening.


Now I have a test in Physics, Introduction to Film, and Human Development this week, and next week is finals week. I will go through the logs and get the data, but I cannot guarantee it will be this week.

You should fly TBM's in the next scenario.

I feel like I will do no such thing. I'm not saying its easy for the TBM's. Nobody is saying that at all. What we're saying is that it is unhistorical hard to shoot them down for the A6M's. 

It will have them.

Oh, of that I have no doubt, the CM's have made this abundantly clear.


How about this Brooke, should we be able to get someone to create a USN skin for the B5N for the next EW PTO event, would you be willing to use it in place of the TBM, given that your primary argument was immersion? New skins are added all the time, and new aircraft with default skins are added all the time. I haven't noticed a need to redownload each terrain every time this happens. Unless the special event servers are fundamentally different, it should work the same way.


We've proven that it is empirically a better substitute for the TBD, ignoring the skin. This being the case, should we remedy the skin, there should be no logical reason to use the TBM.

[Brooke]

But upon initial inspection of the information contained in the logs, I will simply have to estimate when the attack run began based on the time each group scores their first hit on a ship (~5 minutes prior sound fair?), and assume that all bombers for that group began their attack run at the same time. Would this be a correct assessment?

More thought on this while driving home from work.  This will get into some picker details of data analysis.

You are trying to estimate what percentage of planes are shot down near the target and what percentage are shot down not near the target.

If bombers are shot down near the time of someone in the squadron getting objects destroyed (call this "Condition A"), it is reasonable to conclude that the plane is near the target.

However, concluding that, if a plane doesn't fall into Condition A, it is not near the target when shot down is not a good assumption.  The reason is that there are times when the whole squadron is lost while attacking the target, and no one got any objects destroyed.

So, if you find that the majority of planes shot down are in Condition A, that is good enough to conclude that most bombers are shot down near target.  So, first I'd do that and see.  But if most planes are not shot down in Condition A, it is not valid to conclude that most planes are shot down away from target.  So, if most planes are not shot down in Condition A, more work must be done to conclude if they are mostly near target or not.

I'm not sure how to do this easily.  One way is to look at my AAR's here and use my descriptions and time of events to conclude whether it was happening near target or not, and confine relative comparison to my torpedo-bombing squadron.  Of course, that's not great, but I'll think some more.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/coralSea2009.htm

[ROC]

There will be TBMs.

You can spend your time complaining about it, or spend it trying to figure out a way to take them out. 

But it isn't going to change.  You are welcome to waste pixels arguing about it though. 

[Brooke]

Loss rates of A6M's to TBM's, escorting fighters, etc.

That's given above.

If more TBM's survive to the attack run, its fair to say more are getting ordnance out. More ordnance = more points or objectives accomplished. Or at the very least a greater chance of this happening.

Let's say (torp hits) = function(x, y, z).  If you already have (torp hits), you don't need to fret about x, y, and z.  We have data already on torp hits above.

Now I have a test in Physics, Introduction to Film, and Human Development this week, and next week is finals week. I will go through the logs and get the data, but I cannot guarantee it will be this week.

Don't be screwing around with a bunch of time on the message board when you have tests coming up.  One is of importance nearly zero, and the other has lots of importance.

What we're saying is that it is unhistorical hard to shoot them down for the A6M's.

Yes, I understand.  My point is that the extra difficulty doesn't result in any significant outcome.  There is no significant difference between win rate of USN vs. IJN, number of torp hits, number of fighters shot down by torp bomber, or number of torp bombers lost to fighters.  This could be because of:  (1) it is merely perception, or (2) TBM's are harder to shoot down, but only in situations that are an insignificant part of the scenario, or (3) a mixture of the two.  I think it's 3.

How about this Brooke, should we be able to get someone to create a USN skin for the B5N for the next EW PTO event

I already discussed that angle above.

We've proven that it is empirically a better substitute for the TBD, ignoring the skin.

No, that's an opinion.  The B5N is slow like a TBD and has a rear gun like the B5N (unless it is the 2-gun version, in which case it has twice).  However, the TBD has a forward gun (again, not insignificant to the bomber pilot, I can assure you), and no one knows what its sturdiness is or how it would be in a dive compared to a B5N.

[Tank-Ace]

See Rule #4

[Tank-Ace]

Don't be screwing around with a bunch of time on the message board when you have tests coming up.  One is of importance nearly zero, and the other has lots of importance.

Don't worry, I know how important grades are.

Yes, I understand.  My point is that the extra difficulty doesn't result in any significant outcome.  There is no significant difference between win rate of USN vs. IJN, number of torp hits, number of fighters shot down by torp bomber, or number of torp bombers lost to fighters.  This could be because of:  (1) it is merely perception, or (2) TBM's are harder to shoot down, but only in situations that are an insignificant part of the scenario, or (3) a mixture of the two.  I think it's 3.

Okay, I accept it doesn't have a large impact on the scenario outcome. However it ruins things for the A6M's tasked with shooting them down no less than flying a japanese-skinned bomber does for the allied pilots.

I already discussed that angle above.

Humor me. How is it different than the addition of a new skin in the MA, or a new aircraft for the game as a whole?

No, that's an opinion.  The B5N is slow like a TBD and has a rear gun like the B5N (unless it is the 2-gun version, in which case it has twice).  However, the TBD has a forward gun (again, not insignificant to the bomber pilot, I can assure you), and no one knows what its sturdiness is or how it would be in a dive compared to a B5N.

Let me rephrase; based on what we know at the moment, the B5N makes a closer approximation of the TBD than does the TBM, the only actual way we're sure the  TBM is closer to the TBD is that it has forward firing guns (8x the firepower of the TBD, in AH metrics).

I will try to find more information as to Vne and toughness of the TBD vs that of the TBM and B5N. However you seem to have simply gone with the assumption that it more closely matches the TBM, just because.


You can call it an opinion if you like, but the fact remains that you have eschewed a plane that we can verify approximates the TBD much better than the TBM does in terms of quantifiable metrics, for the sake of its paintjob and a forward firing gun.

[kilo2]

See Rule #4

[perdue3]

See Rule #4

[ROC]

See Rule #4

Actually, I expect some really great changes to happen in the not too distant future   I think you simply confuse what you think you know with what you actually know.

See Rule #4

You quoted "sit down and shut up"  Please show me where I said that. I don't like being misquoted. Yet again, I think your imagination is running wild on you.

[danny76]

See Rule #4

Constructive criticism is fine, calling people, who have taken their own time to produce something, idiots or stupid, is not

[kilo2]

Actually, I expect some really great changes to happen in the not too distant future   I think you simply confuse what you think you know with what you actually know.
 

How mysterious of you.

When are you going to release the write-up. I am interested to see when/where/how I am going to fly that sweet p-38.

[artik]

Just my $0.02

Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.

This is exactly what happened in Midway with TBDs (real, not AH). It is well known tactical mistake to drop all the CAP to kill torpedo bombers and not expect the dive bombers  - it is especially well known because of Midway.

The only difference between what you describe and Midway that some TBMs managed to actually hit anything before they died. IIRC one of the reasons that TBD failed to hit is very problematic torpedoes that used to fail easily and in AH torpedoes do not fail if used in the proper envelope.

So tell me how is this different?

You can only blame the defenders for not keeping the reserve of a high CAP to catch the dive bombers despite the fact that is one of the basic things should be learned from the history.

but all the above does not matter... because

We don't have TBD, yet we have TBM... Once we have TBD in AH would can talk about what torpedo bomber to choose. Now it is just irrelevant and purely theoretical discussion.

Finally in terms of game balance, IJN has much better planes overall, so talking about "unfairness" of TBM especially when they have very little chance to survive is just bad taste (IMHO).

[Brooke]

Okay, I accept it doesn't have a large impact on the scenario outcome. However it ruins things for the A6M's tasked with shooting them down no less than flying a japanese-skinned bomber does for the allied pilots.

No, some A6M2 pilots (some who have never flown in either the scenario or the "This Day" events) feel that TBM's are too hard to shoot down compared to what they think a TBD would be like.  The large majority of pilots like the Coral Sea scenario and This Day event just fine.

Humor me. How is it different than the addition of a new skin in the MA, or a new aircraft for the game as a whole?

You know, when I have already posted the answer to exactly that question in this very topic, when you didn't read that response and now keep asking me to look it up for you, and when looking it up takes me time as it would you, I get the feeling that you think my time is less valuable than yours, which, I assure you, is not the case.

Let me rephrase; based on what we know at the moment, the B5N makes a closer approximation of the TBD than does the TBM

No, it's not based on what we know at the moment.

, the only actual way we're sure the  TBM is closer to the TBD is that it has forward firing guns (8x the firepower of the TBD, in AH metrics).

The TBD is infinity times the forward firepower of the B5N, which is my main point.  Also, the TBD had a 30 cal or a 50 cal.  I'm not sure when it got the 50 cal.  If 50, the TBM has 2x the forward firepower of the TBD.

I will try to find more information as to Vne

What is useful is knowing how fast you can dive before parts come off, at what speed compressibility sets in, and at what speed you can no longer maneuver well.  I don't think that Vne is any of those.  I would think it would be at least the first of those, but some planes go well beyond their Vne will no ill effects, both in AH and in real life.

and toughness of the TBD vs that of the TBM and B5N.

That will be very hard to determine, I think.  I think that the best you will get is a statement that it didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks and anecdotal statements like "it had poor armor".  Keep in mind, though, that a statement like "it had poor armor" isn't very useful other than knowing, I guess (although even that is not certain) that it at least had some armor, unlike perhaps the B5N.

However you seem to have simply gone with the assumption that it more closely matches the TBM, just because.

No, I don't assume that.  But I don't assume the opposite either.

but the fact remains that you have eschewed a plane that we can verify approximates the TBD much better than the TBM does in terms of quantifiable metrics, for the sake of its paintjob and a forward firing gun.

No.  The TBD is closer to the B5N in top level speed and rear firepower.  It is closer to the TBM in forward firepower.  It is closer to the TBM in being actually a USN aircraft.  It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of sturdiness.  It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of dive ability.  It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of turning ability.  It is unclear which it is closer to in terms of handling at speed.