Bomber Combat simulation in Aces High

[Traveler]

I know its hard for a lot of people to hear but this is a game, NOT ACTUALLY WORLD WAR TWO!    

of course it's game, but the author says it based on a combat simulation.  I'd say the bombers are the gamest part of it.

[Traveler]

FYI:  the guns are only in sync at 500 yards   

And how is that a simulation of anything related to bombers in WWII?

[Brooke]

I said that the reality of WWII was that un-escorted bombers were shot down in very large numbers
[and in AH bombers are not]

Your perception is incorrect.

One of the raids you talk about that nearly broke the back of the 8th AF was the unescorted 2nd Raid on Schweinfurt (aka "Black Thursday").  In that raid, out of 291 B-17's, 60 didn't make it back, for a loss rate of 21%.

In Scenarios (which are set up more akin to actual battles -- i.e., large groups of bombers against historical opponents), loss rate of unescorted bombers when found by the enemy is generally about 100%.  We have seen this many times in Scenarios, such as in Der Grosse Schlag, Battle Over Germany, and Der Grosse Schlag II.  Those were Scenarios with B-17's.

We also have many scenarios with other types of bombers:  Battle of Britain (Ju 88's and He 111's), Rangoon (G4M's), Red Storm / Krupp Steel (Ju 88's and B-25's), Tunisia (Ju 88's and B-25's), The Final Battle (Lancs), Philippine Phandango (Ki-67's and B-25's), Mediterranean Maelstrom (Ju 88's).  Bombers generally get massacred (close to 100% losses) when they are found without escort and pounced upon.  I can tell you this from direct experience of that in all of the Scenarios mentioned.

Even escorted groups can have fairly high loss rates.  50% isn't uncommon.

Thus, in Scenarios, bomber loss rate is higher than historical.  That is probably because people don't really die in AH, and so attackers press their attacks to the limit.

[Karnak]

I shot down three B-17s in one sortie in a Ki-43.  Sure, the gunner sucked, but still....

[Traveler]

Your perception is incorrect.

One of the raids you talk about that nearly broke the back of the 8th AF was the unescorted 2nd Raid on Schweinfurt (aka "Black Thursday").  In that raid, out of 291 B-17's, 60 didn't make it back, for a loss rate of 21%.

In Scenarios (which are set up more akin to actual battles -- i.e., large groups of bombers against historical opponents), loss rate of unescorted bombers when found by the enemy is generally about 100%.  We have seen this many times in Scenarios, such as in Der Grosse Schlag, Battle Over Germany, and Der Grosse Schlag II.  Those were Scenarios with B-17's.

We also have many scenarios with other types of bombers:  Battle of Britain (Ju 88's and He 111's), Rangoon (G4M's), Red Storm / Krupp Steel (Ju 88's and B-25's), Tunisia (Ju 88's and B-25's), The Final Battle (Lancs), Philippine Phandango (Ki-67's and B-25's), Mediterranean Maelstrom (Ju 88's).  Bombers generally get massacred (close to 100% losses) when they are found without escort and pounced upon.  I can tell you this from direct experience of that in all of the Scenarios mentioned.

Even escorted groups can have fairly high loss rates.  50% isn't uncommon.

Thus, in Scenarios, bomber loss rate is higher than historical.  That is probably because people don't really die in AH, and so attackers press their attacks to the limit.

In other arenas that may be true, but in the main arena my perception is based on my observation of watching unescorted bombers being attacked by two and three fighters and walking away undamaged.  I've seen this happen over and over in the main arena for many many years.     I know that the arena settings are different in each arena, I don't know if that has an impact or not, but watching the bomber gunner with multiple guns in sync taking out fighter after fighter is not based on any true simulations of air combat  that I am aware of.    

[Traveler]

I shot down three B-17s in one sortie in a Ki-43.  Sure, the gunner sucked, but still....

Yes, people do shoot down bombers, As they well should , I'm just saying that based on reality of WWII  which this simulations is based, Unescorted bombers should fair as well as they do in this simulation.

[FLS]

I don't fly bombers and I don't attack bombers.  Having watched to many times over the years where the lazer guns just plain wipe everyone out.

You don't make a good case. It could be a particularly skilled player that you're watching. If someone like yourself who doesn't usually fly bombers could easily shoot down attacking fighters then I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[Brooke]

In other arenas that may be true, but in the main arena my perception is based on my observation of watching unescorted bombers being attacked by two and three fighters and walking away undamaged.  I've seen this happen over and over in the main arena for many many years.     I know that the arena settings are different in each arena, I don't know if that has an impact or not, but watching the bomber gunner with multiple guns in sync taking out fighter after fighter is not based on any true simulations of air combat  that I am aware of.    

There is no difference in lethality for guns in Scenarios compared to the MA.

I think it's still incorrect perception.  I think that you are remembering the cases where no bombers are lost an not remembering the more-numerous cases where one or more bombers are lost.  In the MA, when you have a trio of bombers attacked by two or three fighters, the average outcome is that one or more bombers will be shot down.  That is a loss rate equal to or greater than Black Thursday.

[Tinkles]

Early on in the actual World War II the 8th Air Force reversed it's decision to fly bombers into Germany un-escorted after having more than 100 bombers shot down in one mission alone.  It was proven that un-escorted bombers were easy kills for the (at that time superior Germane fighters)  With that thought in mind how is it that one set of three bombers in AH is able to fight off two or three fighters taking little or no damage un-escorted.  Something must be wrong with the combat simulation model in AH.   What's the difference other than one pilot controlling three heavy bombers .   Could it be the three or four sets of guns firing in sync.   Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.

I think it is as even as it's going to get, period. 

Like others have said, I've seen crappy shots and great shots.  Speaking for myself, I am an above average gunner.  I think that if you are in a fighter, and don't know what you are doing, then learn! Same for bombers or GVs.  Because there is currently nothing wrong with fighter/bomber interactions. It's all perspective and individual skill level (with the occasional lag portion in the equation).  I've killed 2 sets of bombers side-by-side without getting hit, I've died before getting 1 ping from 1200 yards back (was 3 O clock high infront of the guy, helluvashot.. and no it wasn't 999000  ). 

If you know what you are doing, you are someone to be reckoned with.  I list myself as average or slightly above, and I do just fine.. and when I was able to play, I was playing on minimum everything.  So I wonder how I will be when I get my new rig? 

[BaldEagl]

Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.

Disagree.  Bombers are meat on the table in the MA.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I shot down three B-17s in one sortie in a Ki-43.  Sure, the gunner sucked, but still....

The real gunners were freezing and peeking through a small hole with no understanding on their surroundings. They could see only the small patch of their fire sector at a time. It's totally different from AH where you can have all the guns pointed where you want with a 360° visibility.

[GScholz]

In AH bombers are too easy to shoot down because we have perfectly stable atmospheric conditions; no turbulence, no slipstreams from the bombers. We also have too accurate defensive fire from bombers.

In scenarios there is also too little focus on force preservation. There should be penalties for losing aircraft, also on the defending fighter force.

As for real life... During 1943 with an average mission loss rate of more than 5%, the 8th AF lost its entire bomber force three times over. In the 2nd Schweinfurt raid (14th October) as part of Pointblank, fifty-nine B-17s were shot down over Germany, one ditched in the English Channel on the return flight, five crashed in England, and twelve more were scrapped due to battle damage or crash landings. A total loss of 77 B-17s. 122 were damaged to some degree and needed repairs before their next flight. Out of 2900 crewmen, about 650 did not return, although some survived as POWs. Five were killed and forty-three wounded in the damaged aircraft that made it home, and 594 were listed as MIA. Only 33 bombers landed without damage. 77 out of a force of 291 is 26.5%, on one mission. After that mission the USAAF withdrew from deep raids into Germany, and did not return until the spring of 1944 when sufficient numbers of P-51s were available to escort them.

[GScholz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuWoh67V-C4

For those who haven't seen the excellent machinima of Heinz Knocke's "I flew for the Führer".

[Brooke]

In scenarios there is also too little focus on force preservation. There should be penalties for losing aircraft, also on the defending fighter force.

There generally are penalties for losing fighters in Scenarios.  However, it applies to both sides.  It's always of the form "if I die, my side loses X; but if I kill that other guy, his side loses X," and so people go for it nearly regardless of what X is.  Unless there is a strong personal penalty to dying (such as death, dismemberment, a monetary fine), because of this symmetry side to side, there will be no flying like your life depended on it.

[GScholz]

Should be that if both sides loses too many aircraft no one wins. It becomes a draw.