Is the MA strat working? Possible tweaks?

[OIO]

no much. the 8th AF had to have below 5% losses per mission or it would lose the attrittion contest.

In AH its exponentially higher, definetely. Not many people bother to land their buffs.

[Pepe]

There were approximately 7000 losses between B17's and B24's alone. Of them, more than 4000 lost in combat, the rest written off due to combat damage or accident. 2500 returned to the U.S. after the war. And bear in mind that this figures comprise the whole campaign. The first phase, where bombers flew alone, with little or no cover was an absolute carnage.

Any bomber in WWII left alone with no escort was pretty much a sitting duck, except, perhaps, Ar234. Boxes and formations improved the survivability of hvy bombers, but not enough, by far, to give them a fair chance of returning after an unescorted raid over enemy territory.

I'm sure someone else in this BBS can explain the whole thing clearer than me.

[mars01]

The Germans also upped the caliber of their guns so they could hit outside the range of the buff guns.   Saw this on wings.

I agree it would be nice if the gun positions were modeled to be more accurately destroyed.  But then I would like to see the ability to fill a buff with real players in all gun positions, like the AWIII days.

All in all if you don’t approach buffs the right way they are extremely lethal.  But it is awesome to make two or three perfect passes on a formation, bullets all over you, and kill all three without a scratch.  Takes patience and skill but is alot of fun.


I agree with Lazs, but I think the buffs bring a frustration that comes with war - getting your bellybutton kicked.  If we just had a big furball arena I think it would be much like the first MATRIX unrealistic and over time boring.  I think the many different aspects of this game are what makes it very close to real.  I think the strat part of the game is critical and creates some excellent furballs.

Mars01 - MAW Blacksheep, XO

[muckmaw]

Mars-

Are you going to be on tonight?

If 40 let's me run ops, we're going to be doing some heavy bombing, with escort as well as our usual ops.

Also, the buff missions are not nearly as long as some make them out to be.

Last night, we took 17's w/50% fuel to 15k. We launched from 45, south to I think it was 2 or 3 sectors, leveled at 15 K, and then fly another 1 1/2 sectors to target. We then flew home to 25.

Whats the distance on this?

I remember looking at my stats after the mission and realizing it only took 48 minutes from start to finish.

This is the kind of strat mission I enjoy.

[vorticon]

of course in the end its safer faster and a little more presice to take a bunch of fighters with 3k worth of bombs to do the dirty work...

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by vorticon
of course in the end its safer faster and a little more presice to take a bunch of fighters with 3k worth of bombs to do the dirty work...

Of course it is, but it's all about fun, isn't it?

If all we ever did was JABO, this game would bore me to tears. Sometime you need to mix it up.

[Rutilant]

"of course in the end its safer faster and a little more presice to take a bunch of fighters with 3k worth of bombs to do the dirty work..."

Safer? nawwwww

[lazs2]

muck... 48 minutes watching paint dry is a VERY long time for me.

hap..  you need to work on the comprehension thing.   Either that or simply hang out with beetle and be obtuse together.
lazs

[Mister Fork]

Muckmaw & All: As the Combat Theare Admin, there are a lot of settings I can change to enhance gamplay.

When discussing strat, there is a setting called "Playerresupplytime" that the admin can set with ranges fom 0-1440 minutes.  That's the number of minutes of downtime a resupply box eliminates.  Set it to zero or maybe even a lower value like 5 minutes, players can not resupply fields thus eliminating the resuppling dweebing that happens after a HQ raid.

As for radar, we often set the tower dar to higher and more realistic values.  We have TOTAL control on distances, icons, and sector bars, flashing field distances for all player objects.

I don't think Dale or Doug need to re-invent the wheel, all I think they need to do is modify some settings to make AH more strategic.  

Some items the MA can change:
1. Radar: fullfriendly mode. All friendly a/c are seen where ever they are. This is a realistic item as during WWII, a simple call into air controllers would tell you the location of other friendly craft.
2. Radar: distances - when an enemy aircraft appears on sector count and appears as an enemy dot on the scope (map) and the altitudes for both dot and sector pickups. Also settable are the distance a base/factory starts flashing. Make radar pickup ranges historically correct (I.e. 2 - 3 times the current values).
3. Object hardness and downtimes. We often set this value to longer or shorter ranges depending on the map. lenghten downtimes for other larger objects. Would a town building be historically replaced in 30 minutes? How about an aircraft hangar? Maybe 2-3 hours, but not 30 minutes.
4. Set the AAA setting to .7 from 1.0. Currently most field AAA will take you out with a single hit. We found in the CT that AAA at .7 makes dive bombing a field survivable, but not easy.

The question is would changing any of these values actually improve gameplay.   I think reducing AAA to .7, double tower radar pickups, and reduce player resupply to 5 mintues would help.  

I will make this point however, Dale and Doug have been doing this for YEARS and they know what makes this game works.  Maybe AH2 incorporates a lot of these items into it?

[mars01]

Hell Ya - Muck,  I'll run escort,

I dig recreating situations, that turn into very realistic scenarios in this game.  

I guess at times, that is what I like the most.  I think it is great to be sitting above a well formed tight group of bombers and pick the enemy  off.  Bullets everywhere, you hear guns all around you shooting - it surreal.

On the other hand there is nothing worse then escorting a group of bombers that are spread out all over the place and droping like flies, because we can't cover them.  So keep em tight Muck!!! lol

I also dig formation flying, so just trying to hold good fighter formation otw to target is a blast for me.  I love the peel off to fight.  But I love to fly as much as I love to fight.  

Especially after two hours this afternoon of just ACM and dog-fighting.  (I take advantage when I can lol)

Anyway Air Combat is supposed to be hours of boredom, broken up by seconds of terror.  8)  lol.   At least thats what they said.  I can hear laz gagging.  lol


All

Mars01 MAW Blacksheep, XO

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by lazs2
muck... 48 minutes watching paint dry is a VERY long time for me.
lazs

'

Different strokes, Mr. Lazs.

No one is forcing you to play my way.

Happy furballing.

[Bubbaj6]

Totally off-topic (and clearly bored at work) but wanted to try to correct a misconception.  Feel free to ignore if you care to:

Pepe,

I am afraid I have to disagree with your conclusions.  From all the things I have seen and heard from various sources (books, documentaries, biographies, and even first hand recounts) bomber guns were lethal as hell and were far from "sitting ducks" when approached from their 6s.  Granted most of what I know is about the B-17 and not the other bombers in AH (and as such may not be accurate) but the 17 is the buff I see with the most frequency.

Anyways, prior to the B-17g the chin gunner/bombadier had a hand mountable machine gun much like the waist or cheek positions.  The Luftwaffe pilots determined that rather than coming from the 6 o'clock position where there were up to 5 gun positions (three turrets w/ 2 guns each and 2 hand operated guns) that were able to fire upon them (depending on approach angle) and braving the hail of gunfire, approaching head-on from the nose where there were a maximum of 4 gun positions (2 turrets w/ 2 guns each and 2 single hand operated single gun positions) was far more effective.  Furthermore, the cheek gun only covered a small portion of sky so if the right approach was made it could be avoided furthering the benefit from this manner of approach.  The exploitation of this defensive weakness led to considerable losses and was not solved until the arrival of the G model with its power operated nose turret.  At this point the Luftwaffe had to change tactics.  This is one of the major sources of early-war bomber losses.

The second major source was the sheer availability of fighters in the area and the depth of defense that was available because of occupied Europe.  Having this depth allowed the Luftwaffe to stage attacks all the way into the target and all the way out.  Simple law of averages says that the more attacks you suffer the greater the chance of a sucessful one. This is illustrated in the fact that France was considered a "milk run".  Think about it.  France was the "front line" as it were prior to June '44.  The highest concentration of fighters and the most skilled pilots would have been stationed here.  Flak was setup the same way.  Yet losses were lower enough for the pilots to consider it an "easy" target.  Kinda contradictory based on your assumption.  Also there were few resources in the European theater to wage war at this time.  The U.S. was still ramping up its equipment and manpower and the effects of mobilization wouldn't be felt in Europe until mid '43.

The third major source is escort fighters, but their significance is not what you think it is.  By the time effective escort fighters came along with the range for deep penetration raids (discounting the P-38 which had the range from the beginning of the offensive) Germany's defenses had been largely reduced.  A wide array of strategic targets had been hit reducing the ability of Germany to wage war.  Additionally, the second front had gotten into full swing reducing available defensive resources.  The attack through Italy had taken place (if I remember correctly) and nullified that ally forcing another "almost-front".  In other words it was a totally different war and the escort fighters were able to further compound this deteriating situation by adding further difficulty to the Luftwaffe's task.  

Three other tidbits.  1)  I coulnd't find the exact date, but if memory serves the P-51D (lauded as the premiere escort fighter) didn't enter front line service until late 43-early 44.  By this time almost two years of night and day bomber raids had been going on destroying Germany's defensive infrastructre and fatiguing crews of both fighters and flak.  2)  Final stats for the war indicate that the B-24 was credited with the most fighters kills of any aircraft in service with the B-17 in second.  Not the escort fighters.  3)  Bomber formations were changed in mid '43 after Curtis LeMay tested his theories with the Bomber group he was in command of.  This alone resulted in a double digit percent reduction in losses (cannot remember exact percentage) because bombers were better able to overlap their fire zones.

I won't even go into the effects on the Luftwaffe of their losses in Russia, the experience gap that existed at the beginning of the bombing offensive, or how their best pilot's had had their luck run out (1% chance of death, run a few hundred sorties by the time we are talking about and what do you think the chances are).  Nor will I go into the idea that many of the best American pilots rotated back to the States to training new pilots after their tour while the Germans had to fight to the end.

Finally, I think I know the film you are refering to Pepe.  The one where the plane is approaching from the 6 o'clock position of a B-17 peppering the left wing with cannons from VERY close range, right?  Ever notice that the right wing cannot be seen and hence checked for damage, that the ball turret is facing straight down (the position needed for the gunner to get out) and not moving, the top turret is not moving, the tail gunner does not appear to be firing, AND (whew) no other B-17s can be seen meaning the B-17 is not in formation and now has holes in its defenses?  That film is NOT of a functioning B-17.  It is a film of a heavily damaged straggler probably just about to have its crew bail out.

Next post will be on topic, I promise

[Bubbaj6]

I have not experienced the "laser beams" talked about here.  I can hit all day long sometimes and have a fighter not go down.  others one hit, one kill.  This is exactly what I see when I am flying fighters.  Sometimes you get a critical hit, other times you don't.

As for the example given about hitting lanc's from an A-20.. Maybe your gunnery was better (more stable platform, less target relative movement, etc)?  Or perhaps you aimed at something other than the tail gunner like wing tips or fuel tanks or whatever?

You complain about a lack of realism but I haven't experienced it.  If one fighter had come up on the 6 of a buff formation do you honestly think that every gunner would NOT be sighted in, exclusively, on it?  Teh real tactics were to swarm from as many different points as possible with as many fighters as possible so as to reduce the ability of the gunners to focus on a given target.

[Hap]

to bring up realism & buffing in ah is stupid.  if i said it, i'm stupid.

flying bombers at 2k anyplace is stupid.

[Pepe]

Thks for the answer, Bubba  

However, talking about this, Regensburg and Schweinfurt are the examples of unescorted buff raids.

August '43 raids (Regensburg and Schewinfurt) saw losses of 12 and 14%. This does not take into account write-offs, just planes shot down.

October '43 (Schweinfurt) saw losses of 25% of bombers. After this last one operation, the whole strategy was revamped.

From Juanuary 44 onwards P38's were assigned to escort duties and the whole objective of bomber raids switched from destroying military targets to provoke the answer of german fighters. In fact, destroying german fighters was a precondition for the bombardments to be effective.

German air defense peaked in February 44, but the fate was sealed. Allied air raids targeted Berlin to make german fighter defense engage, and have them destroyed by escorting fighters. Bombers alone can do very little to fighters, as it had previously been shown. Take a look at the statistics  of this period, and you will see that from march/april '44 onwards bombers losses are increasingly due to Flak, while the defense fighter's role is steadily decreasing.

After german air defense was destroyed, and only after that, B-17's and B-24's of 8th AF were allowed to pound hard Germany's industry. Even in this situation, the results were questionable, bearing in mind that Germany industrial output peaked in the second half of 1.944.

It is a personal opinion, but I think that aerial bombardment at those times was tremendously effective to break people's morale, but was quite inneffective when it came to effectively disrupt the weapons industry and war production.

Anyway, and back to the point, IMHO, World War II facts tend to prove that bombers were helpless against fighters and, especially, to interceptors, thus needed an escorting force with adequate proportions to answer to expected air opposition.

Of course, I am just a history aficionado, and ready to accept any correction of more qualified oppinions.