|
Cool, thanks for the info on the dive bombing folks.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:Well poo poo, guess the Matrix forums lied to me. I've been running my aircraft altitudes from the posts since forever. What altitudes should I be using? Honestly, depends on a whole lot. Higher altitude for level bombing means bombers are safer, but shittier at hitting things.  This is my consistent Day 01 setting for Manila I think I have a few other settings off/on, but its consistent in how effective a low level attack can be (With no real defenses in the area). It shows off the fact that lower altitude almost guarantees a hit.    9 Sunk ships, 7 of them are submarines... Bonus: Test day 01, Pearl Harbor, note release height. No altitudes were modified.  Also, lol, my test game saw 4 battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Bombers have to be dive bombers specifically in order to dive bomb. The matrix forums state that you have to set a 10K-15K transit altitude to get dive bombing from your dive bombers. Otherwise they glide bomb or level bomb. I haven't verified this myself, of course, but if this isn't true it is a major issue in that it is stated regularly as truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
pthighs posted:Bombers have to be dive bombers specifically in order to dive bomb. The matrix forums state that you have to set a 10K-15K transit altitude to get dive bombing from your dive bombers. Otherwise they glide bomb or level bomb. Not sure about the height restriction for when a bomber can start its dive bombing, but yeah its a special condition for dive bombers only.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Does dive bombing do more damage (in real life) than just dropping the bomb? Like I feel the kinetic energy of the bomb in addition the explosion would do something, but I am hoping someone knowledgeable can go further into this. The aircraft carrying the bomb downward doesn't meaningfully add to its kinetic energy (it might actually reduce it, depending on the speed and length of the dive compared with the acceleration of the bomb in free-fall; remember most dive bombers have flaps or fixed gear designed to slow them in the dive). A reasonably large bomb dropped from several thousand feet has sufficient energy to penetrate any realistic amount of deck armor in any case, although of course the bomb case won't be strong enough to do so unless specially designed. As others said, the principle advantage of dive bombing is that it actually hits things from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:The aircraft carrying the bomb downward doesn't meaningfully add to its kinetic energy (it might actually reduce it, depending on the speed and length of the dive compared with the acceleration of the bomb in free-fall; remember most dive bombers have flaps or fixed gear designed to slow them in the dive). A reasonably large bomb dropped from several thousand feet has sufficient energy to penetrate any realistic amount of deck armor in any case, although of course the bomb case won't be strong enough to do so unless specially designed. As others said, the principle advantage of dive bombing is that it actually hits things from time to time. They did not have great success rates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
   Oh thank god!   We bring down another Allied plane.   The Kiddo Butai comes under attack – but they butcher them as the come in.  Another of our patrol ships is hit.  Then another get slammed with four bombs.   We continue to have a good time in the air.  Not so good a time at sea. An ASW air patrol must have picked off an overconfident sub captain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:High altitude strategic bombing missions are generally considered successful when they hit the right city. . Only the nighttime ones. The daytime raids could generally be counted on to at least hit in the vicinity of the actual strategic target, but the nighttime ones were basically just terror bombing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:If you haver a 1% chance of hitting and drop 100 bombs, then you get a hit! Thats how maths works! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
The allies must have really poor pilots going up against the Kiddo Butai? Almost a 3-1 advantage in fighters and they still don't manage to down a plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
The bluest balls in the entire submarine fleet
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
would the AI have an Essex doomstack yet at this point or are they still only trickling in?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Sad King Billy posted:The allies must have really poor pilots going up against the Kiddo Butai? Almost a 3-1 advantage in fighters and they still don't manage to down a plane. Air combat is weird in WitP...
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Sad King Billy posted:The allies must have really poor pilots going up against the Kiddo Butai? Almost a 3-1 advantage in fighters and they still don't manage to down a plane. A couple of things going on in that combat - 1) Escorting planes get an escort malus to their combat results compared to intercepting fighters. 2) P-38 Lightnings are fast and have good high-altitude performance, but have poor maneuverability. They excel for the allies as high-altitude sweepers, but are not great dogfighters. 3) The intercepting fighters, on the other hand, all have very high maneuverability, and since Grey hasn't had terrible pilot attrition, they are most likely decently skilled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
blueshifting posted:1) Escorting planes get an escort malus to their combat results compared to intercepting fighters. Why is this? Is that how things played out in reality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
They've got more to think about and quite possibly drop tanks to gently caress with their flight profile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:would the AI have an Essex doomstack yet at this point or are they still only trickling in? It's currently July of '43, so it looks like Essex (December '42), Yorktown (II) (April '43), Lexington (II) (February '43), and Bunker Hill (May '43) have been commissioned with Intrepid commissioning next month and Hornet and Wasp by the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:would the AI have an Essex doomstack yet at this point or are they still only trickling in? So I have no idea what the actual dates of introduction are in the game (Someone else can look that up), but this is roughly what I can find out via Wiki when the various Essex-Class ships made it into the PTO (Counted as when they made it into Pearl or Ulithi): USS Essex: May 1943 USS Yorktown: July 1943 USS Lexington: August 1943 USS Bunker Hill: September 1943 USS Intrepid: January 1944 USS Hornet: March 1944 USS Wasp: April 1944 USS Franklin: June 1944 USS Hancock: September 1944 USS Ticonderoga: September 1944 USS Randolph: January 1945 USS Bennington: January 1945 USS Shangri-La: February 1945 USS Bon Homme Richard: April 1945 USS Antitem: June 1945 USS Boxer: August 1945 USS Princeton: N/A USS Lake Champlain: N/A USS Tarawa: N/A USS Valley Forge: N/A USS Philippine Sea: N/A Also, for fun, the Independence-class light carriers: USS Independence: July 1943 USS Belleau Wood: July 1943 USS Princeton: August 1943 USS Cowpens: August 1943 USS Monterey: November 1943 USS Cabot: December 1943 USS Langley: December 1943 USS Bataan: March 1944 USS San Jacinto: Early 1944 And finally, the big boys: The Midway-Class Carriers: USS Midway: N/A (Commissioned September 1945) USS Franklin D. Roosevelt: N/A (Commissioned October 1945) USS Coral Sea: N/A (Commissioned 1947, though presumably a still-hot pacific war would speed up the process somewhat) Edit: So right now, we can count on the US having the Hornet, Essex, and Yorktown fleet carriers available, in addition to the Independence and Belleau Wood light carriers. In two months the US will also be getting a pair of new fleet and light carriers, so Grey can basically kiss goodbye to carrier superiority when that happens. Also IIRC we never technically confirmed that the Enterprise sank and I Want To Believe Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Hmm, what are Midway class carriers called in game? Cause if no battle of Midway happens...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Gort posted:Why is this? Is that how things played out in reality? Technically yes, because your escort fighters are meant to do just that, escort the bombers. If they get pulled away from the bombers, then a potential "2nd wave" of defenders could get easy pickings. goatface posted:They've got more to think about and quite possibly drop tanks to gently caress with their flight profile. Drop tanks wouldn't really affect anything since you can... drop them. There is a slight loss in air speed due to the drag of the module, generally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Hmm, what are Midway class carriers called in game? Cause if no battle of Midway happens... the USS Kiafeng and the USS Defiantly
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
P-38s were excellent long-range fighters in the Pacific theater, and many aces over there made their names in them (including the highest scoring US ace of the war, Richard Bong with 40 kills) but they weren't particularly good escort fighters. Their specialty was their much higher top speed than Japanese aircraft, letting them employ "boom-and-zoom" tactics, which are exactly what they sound like. As soon as you tie them into having to closely escort a contingent of bombers, and thus mitigate that advantage, their subpar maneuverability if they're forced into a dogfight rears its head - especially against Zeroes, which were probably the best dogfighters of the early war. Really, while it was not an easy plane to fly, and completely unarmored, you did not want to get into dogfights with Zeroes. This is also the reason why British Spitfire squadrons coming over from Europe took heavy losses initially - the US pilots already in theater advised avoiding dogfights if you could in favor of other tactics, and the British pilots ignored them. The Spitfire was an excellent dogfighter itself, and those tactics worked fine against German and Italian planes, so why would this be different? As it turned out, it was very different. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Gort posted:Why is this? Is that how things played out in reality? From a "verisimilitude" standpoint, you could justify escort fighters being at a disadvantage since they have to, you know, escort* the bombers. From a balance standpoint, it makes sense to require separate "Sweep" missions to clear airfields of enemy CAP. * AFAIK, technically there's also such a thing as a "high escort", where you're actually not in close contact with the bombers as opposed to a "close escort", and you can use your height advantage and distance from the fight to engage any attackers at an orientation of your choosing. This game doesn't capture that (but Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich does!). Lord Koth posted:Really, while it was not an easy plane to fly, and completely unarmored, you did not want to get into dogfights with Zeroes. This is also the reason why British Spitfire squadrons coming over from Europe took heavy losses initially - the US pilots already in theater advised avoiding dogfights if you could in favor of other tactics, and the British pilots ignored them. The Spitfire was an excellent dogfighter itself, and those tactics worked fine against German and Italian planes, so why would this be different? As it turned out, it was very different. How did the operational range of Spitfires match up with the other primary fighters in the Pacific? I know that they could barely escort B-17s across France.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Technically there are 3 types of escorts. Low cover, high cover, and close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How did the operational range of Spitfires match up with the other primary fighters in the Pacific? I know that they could barely escort B-17s across France. Spitfires, especially early models, were pretty much only suitable for fights over their own airfields. Low fuel, really low ammo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
In-game, Spitfires and Hurricanes have a radius* of something like 3 hexes which relegates them almost purely to defense. By comparison, most other fighters have a radius of 4-6 hexes. The Zero can go 7, the P-51 can go 8. *In a game as grognardy as this, of course we need a footnote. There are two types of range: normal and extended, and ranges listed above are normal. Extended range forces planes to carry a reduced payload, and the chance to become an operational loss increases. There might be a combat penalty for fighters as well? On top of separate range bands, drop tanks are also a thing (which impacts both range bands), and to further complicate matters, each individual model of plane has its own drop tank item. For example, a P-40E has a single 52 gallon tank that gives it all of one extra hex of range while the P-38J can carry two 300 gallon tanks that boost its range from 7 hexes to 13 hexes. Many planes don't have a drop tank option at all. To keep things simple and logistically efficient, I usually stick within normal radius without drop tanks for everything not on a carrier. Slippery42 fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
They were pretty much the definitive interceptor so not that great but combined with radar outposts they proved great at intercepting attackers going after bombers on their return run. Later spits had enough range to punch in deeper but it was never their role. The Hurricane could go a bit further but it's speed and max altitude were a bit too limited. The Mosquito had the perfect range profile for the job but was often too busy being awesome elsewhere. The RAF operated the best part of a dozen types of aircraft which were better suited (Tornado and tempest etc.) but it wasn't a role the RAF really specced for, they usually flew at night under the premise 'the bombers always gets through', which was often true. Spits could eventually reach Berlin, in a PR role at least. In terms of being compared to other fighters in the pacific the RAF aircraft were typically shorter legged by 100m or more, but they were well armed with early adoption of cannons typically with the solid Hispano 20mm being bolted to everything. Night fighters mounted with radar were pioneered at this stage which proved useful but situational. So reasonable but most of the good stuff was kept for Europe rather then Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
  The Allies sail this task force into Rabaul harbour. We laugh, then make them pay.  The Destroyer Strong comes back on some sort of Suicide Mission.  We get another air kill.   This is a large raid. They normally comes in 8's.  The flak claims a kill.   And another one!   We hunt down another Chinese remnant force.  We have another day where we do well in the air war.  Their Rabul adventure has cost them dear though – I gain 200 points today as the base points from Chengtu continue to come in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
allied ai just switched to the masochist state you broke its brain by suddenly having planes again
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Wha- I don't understand this one. The WitP AI works by picking from a selection of preset strategic plans and executes the one it chooses. Like, it seemed obviously on the Guadalcanal / Solomons plan earlier. Is there any strategy where "invade Rabaul in 1943" makes even a lick of sense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Why do base points accrue progressively?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 05:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Why do base points accrue progressively? A base is only worth as much as it's repaired and in good supply. If everything is ruined and there's no food it's only worth a fraction of the points. If it's in good supply and repaired up to full then it's worth full points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Wha- Grey lost some bases in the general vicinity of the Guadalcanal/Solomons so that might have been enough to trigger the next step of the island hopping strategy the AI has.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:A base is only worth as much as it's repaired and in good supply. If everything is ruined and there's no food it's only worth a fraction of the points. If it's in good supply and repaired up to full then it's worth full points. That makes sense. I guess that means Grey probably has open supply routes to Chongqing too, which isn't half bad. I'll chuckle if it falls the same day the first atomic bomb gets dropped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Grey lost some bases in the general vicinity of the Guadalcanal/Solomons so that might have been enough to trigger the next step of the island hopping strategy the AI has. Possibly, though generally major military strongholds, like Rabaul, were simply cut off and left to wither in the island hopping campaign, rather than directly assaulted. Even if the specific plan changes, one would think the overall thrust of ignoring the strongest positions would be left intact. Also, that's an enormous amount of engineers compared to anything else in that force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
This is why you don't leave the windows open.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
No! Not the pride of the French Navy! You bastard!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
APA and an AKA are great gets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
 Imaginary Baron
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
  The damaged planes continue to be bombed.  Another day, another crushed Chinese force.  Its nice to see China getting me some nice points.  Its also nice to see planes flowing out. I just like to give the AI a chance now and again! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 17:33
|
|