PDA

View Full Version : Problems attacking american carriers



Fer109
01-21-2007, 01:27 PM
Hello everybody. I have installed FB+ACE+PF with the offical patch 4.04m. Playing the online campaign "Coral Sea" in the japanese side, you have to fight against a task force wit 2 enemy carriers.
My main target are, of course, these carriers, but I have two big problems to achieve my objective:
1º The D3A Val bombers have a very little bomb payload (less than 400 kg). I think it´s needed at least 4 5 direct hits.
2º AI Vals usually attack to both carriers instead of center in the same one, and never sink one.
My initial solution was taking the lider of the whole Val's formation, but when we are close to the carriers, I don't know how to order them to concentrate in a certain carrier. Studying the radio command orders, I tried "attack my target", but "padlock enemy ground" doesn't work with naval TGTs. They usually respond me "unable to comply" and return to home with the bombs or attacking anything.

Anybody can help me? Anybody knows how to "designate" a carrier? Other suggestions?

2º question: the original idea for "bombs delay" is for increasing the effect of the bomb or only for avoiding the fragmentation?

3º question: anybody knows if the B5N Kate will be flyable in future patches?

Thank you. And sorry for my English.

Fer109
01-21-2007, 01:27 PM
Hello everybody. I have installed FB+ACE+PF with the offical patch 4.04m. Playing the online campaign "Coral Sea" in the japanese side, you have to fight against a task force wit 2 enemy carriers.
My main target are, of course, these carriers, but I have two big problems to achieve my objective:
1º The D3A Val bombers have a very little bomb payload (less than 400 kg). I think it´s needed at least 4 5 direct hits.
2º AI Vals usually attack to both carriers instead of center in the same one, and never sink one.
My initial solution was taking the lider of the whole Val's formation, but when we are close to the carriers, I don't know how to order them to concentrate in a certain carrier. Studying the radio command orders, I tried "attack my target", but "padlock enemy ground" doesn't work with naval TGTs. They usually respond me "unable to comply" and return to home with the bombs or attacking anything.

Anybody can help me? Anybody knows how to "designate" a carrier? Other suggestions?

2º question: the original idea for "bombs delay" is for increasing the effect of the bomb or only for avoiding the fragmentation?

3º question: anybody knows if the B5N Kate will be flyable in future patches?

Thank you. And sorry for my English.

Zeus-cat
01-21-2007, 02:30 PM
1) In real life it would probably take 4 or 5 or more hits to sink a carrier (in most cases), so the game isn't too far off in this case.

2) The mission was probably created with the Vals attacking both ships. There is nothing you can do about this unless you go into the full mission builder and change it yourself. You only have limited control over the computer controlled aircraft once in the mission.

3) No, the B5N will not be flyable. As a matter of fact, there will be no carrier-based flyable torpedo bombers in the game. The reason for this is a very long, complicated story.

FritzGryphon
01-22-2007, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the original idea for "bombs delay" is for increasing the effect of the bomb or only for avoiding the fragmentation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are two main kinds of bomb delay AFAIK.


1. Delay for internal explosion. This allows the bombs to punch through the armor, and explode inside the ship/bunker/whatever. These types of delays are very small, like small fractions of a second. (The movie Pearl Harbor is 100% wrong in this).

2. Delay for frag avoidance. Many second delay so you can clear the area. These kinds of delays were also used for anti-ship bombing, so the bomb explodes under the waterline, for more serious damage.

In this game, the delay is simply a delay, and doesn't effect the power of the bomb in any way.

Another interesting note is that delayed bombs will stick to any object they hit. If your bomb hits a car, it will move along with that car until it explodes. Same with ships, tanks, etc.

tigertalon
01-22-2007, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
1) In real life it would probably take 4 or 5 or more hits to sink a carrier (in most cases), so the game isn't too far off in this case.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, a very debatable topic. This ship damaging should be randomized to some extent IMO. As an example, let's not forget a single Suisei heavily damaged an Essex class carrier (Franklin) with only 2 250kg bombs. It all depended on what was hit.

JG53Frankyboy
01-22-2007, 07:10 AM
anyway, to sink a Fleet carrier (from any nation) IN game you need at least bombhits of 2000kg in total (1000kg for escort carriers).

lot of work for the Val............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the USN has it a little bit easier http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tater-SW-
01-22-2007, 08:43 AM
OTOH, even though turned into burning hulks, not a single Essex Class was sunk. I'm fine for a better, even randomized DM for ships, but larger ships also really require damage control ratings. the bottom line is that sinking a US CV, particularly an Essex Class should be considerably more difficult than sinking an IJN one since the IJN had such abysmal damage control.

IMO, the ship DMs are way too oversimplified. Ships need to have progressive damage and damage control---it needn't be on the level of a "ship sim," just some simple rules for fire doing X damage per minute, and DC being able to control Y units of damage/fire per minute.

Zeus-cat
01-22-2007, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah, a very debatable topic. This ship damaging should be randomized to some extent IMO. As an example, let's not forget a single Suisei heavily damaged an Essex class carrier (Franklin) with only 2 250kg bombs. It all depended on what was hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tigertalon,

I agree. I just didn't want to write a doctoral thesis about it. In general, I think 4 or 5 hits from heavy bombs in "generic" areas has a reasonable chance of sinking a carrier. Obviously, a "lucky" hit could take out just about any ship.

Tater-SW-
01-22-2007, 08:00 PM
Il-2 isn't even comparable in DM though. In Il-2 you need to sink it for it to "count." By Il-2 standards, the Franklin might as well have been hit by nothing at all since she didn't SINK.

Actually, that is not quite true. Would 2x250kg bombs damage the flight deck of an Essex in PF? I haven't reallt tested damage threshholds for CVs. If the flight deck is damaged, it's effectively a mission kill.

Nimits
01-22-2007, 10:50 PM
IRL, the Vals relatively small payload was a big problem when going against capital ships. On a few occasions Vals were able to sink or knock out of action a large ship on their own (Hermes, Dorsetshire, Cornwall, Nevada), but in these instances dozens of Vals were able to swarm one or two ships with minimal air opposition. When it came to sinking US carriers, torpedos were always required.

Fer109
01-23-2007, 04:35 AM
Thank you everybody for replying my questions.

About my second question about the use of "bomb delay", if FritzGryphon is correct and the damage inflicted not depends on that, I suppose everybody select the maximum time (10 seconds) as default, in order to avoid frag.

From my point of view, It's practically IMPOSSIBLE sinking an American carrier in this game with Japanese Navy aircraft.

If Tigertalon is ok, and taking into account other factors (human errors, enemy fighters and AAA) at least 20 sorties (not usual in this game) of Vals probably are required in this mission for a probability of damage be more than 0.5 for sinking an American carrier.

However, playing "Coral Sea" campaign online, the AI American bombers several times (and with similar forces) sank one or even both Japanese carriers. This is very unbalanced!Were Japanese guys in so disadvantage?

Zeus-cat said that B5N Kate will not be flyable because a very long, complicated story. I would like to read this story. Send me the link, please. I agree with Nimits torpedoes is needed.

Are there any place for suggestions to developers for improvements of the game in future patches? Why in a game called "Pacific Fighters" does not exit a simply damage model for carriers or shipboard torpedo planes able to sink them?

Years ago, I enjoyed with "Aces of the Pacific" (Sierra Dynamix). Nowadays I want to continue enjoying similar battles with the incredible improvements of "Pacific Fighters".

There are no more glory for a naval pilot than sinking an enemy carrier. I want to do that, and with Japanese planes!

If somebody do that, please tell me how, you will be my new hero (after Saburo Sakai and Mitsuo Fushida, of course...).

JG53Frankyboy
01-23-2007, 04:51 AM
well, its called pacific fighters......
you can almost all fighters of the PTO fly ingame - and their targets, beside other firhters, the bombers are also in game - sure, at most time not as flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but you can shoot them down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



no, B5N ?
well, there were proplems with Northrop/Grumman (the real one !) who wanted cash for thier planes (to say it simple). so , any development of planes like an Avenger was canceld.
now, imagine the "cry" if there would be a flyable japanese carrierbased Torpedo bomber but no american.............................
this and propably the difficulties to get reliable cockpit sources (i know, there is a Lerche http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) made it "impossible" to put a B5N or B6N as flyable in game.
live with it, it will not be changed !

anyway, you would also need 6 torpedohits to sink a carrier - as you would need 6 hitting Vals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tater-SW-
01-23-2007, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fer109:
Thank you everybody for replying my questions.

From my point of view, It's practically IMPOSSIBLE sinking an American carrier in this game with Japanese Navy aircraft.

If Tigertalon is ok, and taking into account other factors (human errors, enemy fighters and AAA) at least 20 sorties (not usual in this game) of Vals probably are required in this mission for a probability of damage be more than 0.5 for sinking an American carrier.

However, playing "Coral Sea" campaign online, the AI American bombers several times (and with similar forces) sank one or even both Japanese carriers. This is very unbalanced! Were Japanese guys in so disadvantage?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In short, yes they were. A few critical issues. The last US CV sunk in WW2 was Hornet, on 26 October, 1942. Hornet wasn't even sunk by aircraft, she was abandoned after a coordinated VB/VT attack, and later sunk by IJN DDs. Yorktown was sunk by a submarine (she would have survived otherwise) near Midway. Lexington was actually sunk by air attack. So only Lex and Hornet were killed by aircraft, and only lex was sunk by aircraft.

The only losses after that were CVEs.

1. japanese bomb loads were abysmally low.

2. IJN doctrine held the VT units (B5N, and later VTs) as the principal ship sinking aircraft. They were very skilled (early in the war while the skilled guys were still alive) at coordinated attacks. So to test the lethality of IJN planes vs US CVs, make sure it's the size of a real strike with VB and VT units.

3. USN damage control was grossly superior to IJN damage control from day 1, and even better after Coral Sea.

4. USN AAA was grossly superior to IJN AAA.

5. USN CAP was grossly superior to IJN (RADAR and radios)

In short, sinking a CV should be hard for the IJN, and it should require a coordinated attack by on the order of 30-50 aircraft. USN planes killed CVs with far fewer planes, at Midway 1 hit from 1 SBD took out a CV.

Game-wise, I wonder if the AI SBDs were over loaded... The game has a grossly broken loadout for the SBDs, in PF they can carry 1x1000lb AND 2x500lb bombs. The SBD could not carry 500lb bombs on the wings, and in CV use they never carried bigger than 100 lb bombs (a loadout not available in PF). That effectively doubles the bomb load of SBDs in game (which is BS, but will not get fixed).

Nimits
01-23-2007, 12:03 PM
Most missions (both campaigns and hand built) should have the SBD using the single 500lb, 1000lb, or 1600lb bombloads, which is more or less realistic. The 1000lb was the weapon of choice for anti-shipping strikes, 500lb being used on armed recon or long-range strikes. The lack of the 100lb wing bombs on the SBD is annoying, but the 100-pounders were intended for flack suppression (the SBDs were supposed to climb and make a second dive against supporting AAA ships), not ship killing. The wide seperation among IJN ships in a carrier trask force, and more importantly the infeasability of making a second climb in in the combat area meant that after Coral Sea 100lbs were rarely if ever used in the anti-shipping role.

One of the biggest "missing" features of the game is the lack of modelling catastrophic hits. Alot of the capital ships sunk or knocked out of action, from air, surface, or subsurface attacks were lost do to a secondary catastrophic reaction to what would otherwise not be a fatal hit. Arizona, Lexington, Akagi, Wasp, Tahio, Franklin, etc. While ships were on occasion simply battered into the sea (Shoho, Yorktown, Hornet, Musashi, Yamato), it generally required several waves of aircraft from multiple carriers and/or a combination of ships and aircraft to do the deed.

Tater-SW-
01-23-2007, 01:45 PM
^^^True. This goes to my long-standing suggestion that 1C should have lowered the threshhold to severely damage ships (the really wrecked/smoking state), and actually raise the threshhold to sink them.

The game would be hugely more immersive if players left the scene of battle full of smoking, burning ships, rather than empty sea.

tater

Marcel_Albert
01-23-2007, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
^^^True. This goes to my long-standing suggestion that 1C should have lowered the threshhold to severely damage ships (the really wrecked/smoking state), and actually raise the threshhold to sink them.

The game would be hugely more immersive if players left the scene of battle full of smoking, burning ships, rather than empty sea.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed , would be a lot more realistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ShaK.
01-23-2007, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Problems attacking american carriers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

then dont attack them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

JG54_Lukas
01-23-2007, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
this and propably the difficulties to get reliable cockpit sources (i know, there is a Lerche http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) made it "impossible" to put a B5N or B6N as flyable in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are sufficient resources for both the B5N and B6N cockpits (one was started on the B6N at one point), but of course the reasons for them not being completed are well known.

zoinks_
02-01-2007, 03:37 PM
to anyone interested, in the battle of midway, Akagi was hit by a single 1000lb. bomb from an sbd piloted by Lt. Richard Best.

- Shattered Sword, The Untold Story Of The Battle Of Midway p239-242, p253-255.

Tater-SW-
02-01-2007, 04:59 PM
Yeah, that's the problem with a "hit points" type system. They'd do better to read some old board/miniatures rules, and apply some damage tables with critical hits, etc.---Harpoon is a great example. An abstracted damage control system would be cool, too. Ships might have a DC rating put in terms of the damage units used, each X minutes they repair they can repair Y units of damage, where Y is some range (picked at random within the range) based on their DC rating. IJN ships would get low DC ratings, USN would get high DC ratings.

BadA1m
02-02-2007, 11:01 AM
Wow, great responses guys. I've only recently started studying the Pac theater and was amazed to find just how outclassed the IJN was in anti-aircraft and fire control (not to mention strategically). Fer109, if your still lurking, these guys are right on. IL2 has never been about "fair" gameplay, it's about simulating what was actually available to the pilots in WWII (lerch et al aside) and I sooooo hope that never changes!