Elite AirBases

[Stiebler]

It's been drawn to my attention by CCIP and Teddy Bar that aircraft from airbases designated as 'Elite' may not actually drop any bombs. This will affect the new Biscay1 airbase in the NYGM RUb campaign files, and was very surprising since I'd tested the Biscay1 airbase and been bombed and sunk by aircraft from it! In checking old threads, I found that the original source for this tale was the Forum thread entitled 'AirMod Beta 1.1' (May-June 2005), in which Beery suggested that that the Elite air base and, perhaps, the Veteran airbases were affected by this fault. He made this claim on the basis of an unspecified test set-up, but amazingly no one else ever confirmed the claim or disputed it.

So I've carried out my own trials with a U-boat in full RUb campaign mode during August 1944, circling to invite multiple air attacks next to the Azores air base, where there can be no confusion with aircraft from other airbases.

Aircraft from the Azores airbase (when Elite; CrewRating=4) are erratic about dropping bombs if the U-boat makes violent evasive manoeuvres. Sometimes they bomb, more often they do not. They always bomb a near-stationary U-boat.

Aircraft from the Azores airbase (when Veteran; CrewRating=3) are always bombed regardless of manoeuvres. However, their attacks are less frequent than those from the Elite airbase.

This raises an interesting question: should U-boats crossing the Bay of Biscay be subject to many attacks, more than half of which will be pure bluff? Or should they receive far fewer attacks, all of which are dangerous?

Another interesting aspect from the old thread: The U-boat flak range in RUb.
Beery mis-interpreted Kapitsky's well-known flak defence against aircraft, in which Kapitsky cited the poor 300m range of the 'machine guns', as applying to the automatic 20mm cannon. I've restored RUb's air range back from 300 metres to those originally provided by Jace11 (400/800/1200 metres, 'crewai.cfg').

Stiebler.

[CCIP]

Strange. It doesn't quite make sense that Elite would attack more often than Veteran, because the AirStrike.cfg probabilities which were set by Egan are made to have a higher probability of appearance for Veteran than Elite.

The main reason Elite is unacceptable is that AI aircraft do not leave until dropping all bombs. That means that, provided you make manuevers and don't dive - you can be assured that you will shoot an Elite airplane down and it will not hit you.

As far as Flak range:

The main concern is not the range. The main concern is plane strength, or even perhaps lack of manuevering.

Case in point: even with RUb 300m setting, I've shot down 7 avenger aircraft on one day of a patrol just with two early-war Zwilling (operated by AI). Another patrol I shot down 4 liberators with the same armament. With a U-Flak, I once shot down 8 large aircraft in one day. A U-Flak configuration in the game is, in fact, very capable of taking down virtually any aircraft in one pass, even with the 300m range!
Simply put, the results are completely out of proportion. Either Flak efficiency will have to be reduced again, or plane HP increased.

Of course both current solutions aren't neccesarily realistic, but they are balancing. Unfortunately, the plane AI and over-effective flak AI are very open to abuse. The bottom line is that the player shouldn't be able to shoot down aircraft very easily, and they should be a real threat.

[Salvadoreno]

so why isnt there a mod out fixing these inconsistencies. Ive yet to shoot down a plane even tho it seems like ive been hitting them, but i have noticed the lack of manuverability of the aircraft. Though we probably cant change that, seems to me there isnt anything wrong with airplane strenght of cannon strenght. I think the 300m range needs to be increased tho! thats ridiculous!!!

[Der Teddy Bar]

CCIP,
Can you 'prove' your claim? I ask nicely, as I will be producing a NYGM Aircraft Damage Mod. If you are right, WooHoo, cause I dislike the come in, drop bombs regardless and go.

With the NYGM Aircraft Damage Mod I hope to make the planes both tough beyond just adding extra HP's and with weak points for the odd 'lucky' hit.

The planes are somewhat limited in what can fancy stuff can be done.

It is disappointing that RUB just did a rediculous 300 metre restriction. It is as rediculous as you shooting down 7 aircraft in one day.

[Stiebler]

CCIP raises several valid points about the aircraft generally.

The central problems are that the aircraft drop bombs too accurately, whilst the flak defence from the U-boat is equally too accurate. Both problems are hard-coded and cannot be directly modified.

Teddy Bar and I had discussed the problem before this thread was posted. The best solution seems to lie with making the aircraft more robust to flak, the cannon shells less deadly on impact (nothing can be done about their accuracy), and the bomb effect more limited.

We hope that Teddy Bar can use his talents with modifying zones in aircraft (as previously with ships) to improve their robustness. I've made a much more modest contribution with reducing bomb blast radii from those supplied with Jace11's Air Power Mod (incorporated into RUb). The ground was well covered in the 'Air Mod Beta 1.1' thread previously cited; it will be hard to improve things very much.

Stiebler.

[CCIP]

Teddy Bar and I had discussed the problem before this thread was posted. The best solution seems to lie with making the aircraft more robust to flak, the cannon shells less deadly on impact (nothing can be done about their accuracy), and the bomb effect more limited.

We hope that Teddy Bar can use his talents with modifying zones in aircraft (as previously with ships) to improve their robustness. I've made a much more modest contribution with reducing bomb blast radii from those supplied with Jace11's Air Power Mod (incorporated into RUb). The ground was well covered in the 'Air Mod Beta 1.1' thread previously cited; it will be hard to improve things very much.

Stiebler.

That sounds like the right track, yes. I believe Jace had run into some sort of issues with boosting the aircraft further - I'm not sure what it was, of course, as I am not familiar with editing zones.

I hope something can indeed be done. Stronger planes seem to be the proper route; flak, I belive, has been so "nerfed" by RUb that it's difficult to imagine decreasing its effectiveness any further.

***

Teddy - as far as proof, the best I can do is run a campaign patrol post-May '43 with various airbase settings.

As far as shooting down planes - since I've dealt with them a lot over many campaigns, I've gotten a very good knack for evasive manuevers. On the other hand, whether the enemy plane is Competent or Veteran, whether it is a hurricane or a sunderland (or, post-AirPower Liberator - because Level Bomber AI is broken in the game in the same way as Elite AI and really should not be used) - they behave largely the same. They will sight you, approach you, make a diving attack, then repeat if bombs are left. Similarly, they do not alter their behaviour no matter what sort of defensive fire they may be facing, or how damaged they are. The only thing that will make them behave differently is running out of bombs - and that will just make them leave.

Gameplay-wise, it actually matters very little whether the flak range is 300 or 3000, AS LONG AS it's not overly-easy to shoot the plane down. It will not make either your flak gunners or enemy pilots behave much differently. But, if possible, a longer range will be an improvement to at least weapons-range realism and that'd be a plus.

The situation is very disappointing, to be sure. I hope a boost in plane HP will help it at least a bit.

[Der Teddy Bar]

The downfall of previous airplane mods is that they just upped the HP's and did not incorperate a AP to Armour configuration.

Once you have a suitable AP to Armour configuration, to allow only small amount of the laser guided 'hits' to damage the compartment, then the HP value of the bullet and the compartment come into play.

My setup will use the inbuilt variables so that it is truly random if a shell damages the plane, hopefully resulting in planes possibly getting shot down with a few hits to requiring a lot of bullets to not being shot down at all.

Again, the issue is that limited compartments and their large size in regards to getting hit.


If you are really serious about empowering the aircraft, then I suggest that you incorperate these values into your Basic.cfg, as will be done in the upcoming NYGM Mod/s then you will have a lot to fear from the guns of Elco's and Aircraft.

[DAMAGE]
OpenComp=10 ; was 1 ;; This is the deck gun and unshielded AA
PartiallyOpenComp=6 ; was 0.5 ;; This is the Bridge and shielded AA
EnclosedComp=0.1

With these settings you can still go toe to toe with an elco, just expect to get casualties and even dead crew more often than not.

[Kalach]

I don't suppose the engines and cockpit and such are all individual compartments?
It would be good if you could shoot at the more vulnerable parts of a plane for a quick kill (as opposed to just giving every section of the plane a chance for extra damage). Of course your crew would just fire in the general direction of the plane and would need lucky shots to take it down quickly themselves.

[CCIP]

They are, actually. However, with the current system, the differences between them are not overly pronounced. It'll be up to Teddy to balance them out.

Teddy: note my post at WaW in regard to the flak power issue!

[Kalach]

Yes, I was trying to give Teddy Bar a hint for his upcomming plane damage mod ;) . I got the impression he was just going to give all compartments the same stats but with a small chance of each shot doing extra damage.
Though I suspect he's several steps ahead of me :D .

[Der Teddy Bar]

I don't suppose the engines and cockpit and such are all individual compartments?
No.

For example, the Hurricane, has 4 compartments (+ 1 common). Of the 4 compartments only 3 work, the common compartment is not part of this plane as far as I can tell.

The 3 compartments being the wings, engine & fuel are all massive in size.

It would be good if you could shoot at the more vulnerable parts of a plane for a quick kill (as opposed to just giving every section of the plane a chance for extra damage). Of course your crew would just fire in the general direction of the plane and would need lucky shots to take it down quickly themselves.

The issue with aircraft is the lack of a Critical Chance option. This makes it difficult to get a less predicable variation.

[redbrow]

i notice that people are always saying things are out of whack in SH3 but they rarely give any proof from history... they just make bold assertions. maybe this is why no one ever seems to agree. u-boat captains still live and were alive in recent years, why not just ask them?

[CCIP]

i notice that people are always saying things are out of whack in SH3 but they rarely give any proof from history... they just make bold assertions. maybe this is why no one ever seems to agree. u-boat captains still live and were alive in recent years, why not just ask them?

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

One reason we don't give proof from history is that, well, it's been discussed to death before, though could be brought up if needed. Or, it's simply fairly common knowledge/common sense.

As far as aircraft, why bother the poor old guys when uboat.net gives a much more proper estimate of A/C successes, while there is ample literature to refer to for tactical aspects (I get mine from my local library).

If you'd like some figures on over-effective Flak...

No u-boat ever shot down more than 2 aircraft during a single patrol. Only 3 u-boats shot down more than 2 aircraft during their entire career (U-256, U-333 with 4 each; U-648 with 3). As for overall kills, you can see this page where I got all the info from:

http://uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm?sortby=boat

One thing to pay attention to is the overall figures: 125 planes shot down by U-boats, vs. 220 u-boats sunk by planes. We can see whose favour things should be stacked in :hmm:

[Der Teddy Bar]

One thing to pay attention to is the overall figures: 125 planes shot down by U-boats, vs. 220 u-boats sunk by planes. We can see whose favour things should be stacked in
This of course does not include all the u-boats damaged by aircraft.

[CCIP]

One thing to pay attention to is the overall figures: 125 planes shot down by U-boats, vs. 220 u-boats sunk by planes. We can see whose favour things should be stacked in
This of course does not include all the u-boats damaged by aircraft.

True; although I wouldn't doubt that the Coastal Command didn't get off very easily either, and probably had quite a few planes stricken because of damage.

[Der Teddy Bar]

i notice that people are always saying things are out of whack in SH3 but they rarely give any proof from history... they just make bold assertions. maybe this is why no one ever seems to agree. u-boat captains still live and were alive in recent years, why not just ask them?
As CCIP said, it has been discussed to death. Most are both firmilair with the discussion along with the facts.

The problem was no one has been able to fix it.

[VonHelsching]

Maybe, one idea would be to prohibit (up to a certain point) the personnel manning the flak from getting promotions / experience, or change them every 2-3 missions. This could be done with SH3 commander. It wouldn't change the outcome if a player was manning the flaks himself, though.

Personally, I'm a very lousy shooter when it comes to flak and I assign my crew to do it.

[Stiebler]

It's funny how discussions of air mods always revert to discussions of how to improve the over-strong bombers and the over-deadly flak. It reminds me of the old joke that, whenever two electrical engineers get together, they always end up designing a 'better' amplifier.

Cdre Gibs said:
Some ppl just never read everything - if they had then they would be the wiser for it. [+ reference to thread given.]


Your proposal was essentially to change the gun-laying tolerances in guns_sub.sim for the deck gun and the AA guns, lowering them from current values of 15 (in most cases) to 0.75.

I changed the values for the flak to 1.00, and found no benefit after provoking attacks in RUb (contains Jace11's AirPower Mod, gun range 1200m) next to a large US airbase. On three separate occasions (with a cold reboot before the third attack, in case random factors had been unfavourably set), attacked variously by two Catalinas, three four-engined bombers and finally four single-engined fighters, my flak-qualified gun crews shot everything down with negligible damage to the U-boat - mostly during first overflight - with an uninterrupted stream of fire. On the first occasion, sea strength was 10 m/s, close to the limit at which RUb permits flak to be used, so a real test of this mod. Guns were 2x37mm and 2 twin 20mm, so one would expect some kind of effectiveness. But not all aircraft shot down, in most cases before they could drop their bombs.

Von Helsching's proposal (to avoid having a flak qualified crew) was a clever one, and is probably worth following up. It might fit in well with Teddy Bar/Observer's new NYGM crew management mod.

Stiebler.

[VonHelsching]

I am not worried too much from our side of the fence (DG, flak, flak crew etc.) because one way or another they can be fixed, especially after the recent find about the DG stability / accuracy (that was a week or two ago if I remeber right).

The thing that worries me more and bothers me regarding aircraft attacks is the fact that they try to attack regardless of how many HPs they have left. I have been attacked (I don't use RuB btw) several times by burning aircaft, that would literally fall apart if the watch officer could throw on it his binoculars.

2-3 bullets from the flak and kaboom...

I might as well assume that this "feature" is AI controlled, therefore hardcoded, right? Or not?

[Der Teddy Bar]

several times by burning aircaft, that would literally fall apart if the watch officer could throw on it his binoculars.

2-3 bullets from the flak and kaboom...
The effects do not always reflect the true state of the ship or plane. Also fire does not damage, it is a visual aid.

I can have a plane in flames with 1% damage...

Effect1=#plane_damaged, 30 <== i.e. after 30% damage
Effect2=#plane_on_fire, 60 <== i.e. after 60% damage

Effect1=#plane_on_fire, 1 <== i.e. after 1% damage

I will for the most part have no visual cues to the planes condition.

[VonHelsching]

Maybe I did not make myself clear. I was not talking about the "feature" of flames, neither of the correlation (or non-correlation) between flames and damage - which you proved it can be tweaked - but the fact that although they are -ot at least seem to be - damaged, they keep attacking.

My gut feeling is that in real life, if you were a WWII pilot and one of your engines went barbeque you wouldn't stay around and try to fight.

I'm not much into realism, but this crosses my thin red line. And this is hardcoded, right? :cry:

[CCIP]

And this is hardcoded, right? :cry:

Yeah, that's one of my key complaints here, too.

One thing I'm sort of thinking about is perhaps reducing the size of the bomb loadouts slightly - so that planes would make fewer passes and thus expose themselves to less fire. Ironically, I've been having much easier time shooting down Sunderlands than Hurricanes with RUb, because the latter only make one pass....

[Jace11]

When I did tests a while ago, I found two things to be important factor in whether an AI aircraft would drop payload on its run...

1. U-boat speed

2. Relative headings

Faster the U boat is moving, less likely to be attacked on bombing run. Flank speed vs elite aircraft for example, however...

be at 0 speed and I think they attack you....

Relative heading....

Bit complicated and Id have to find my original posts but if you are moving at reasonable speed and elite bomber would occasionally drop its bombs if it approached from your bow.../ stern maybe...


In the end I put it down to attrociously weak AI. It is as theough the elite planes try and hit you exactly..by that I mean they will only drop if they are guarenteed a direct hit or near miss - they are increadible fussy. The lower AI routines seem less fussy so will drop on any pass...

They fussy AI of elites is not backed up by "super-aiming" AI routines so they end up hardly ever dropping....

This was my theory anyway, havent bothered with it since last year anyway, as in my original airpower mods there is only one elite base anyway, rest are VETs average etc to avoid them appearing....

[Stiebler]

I suddenly realised the obvious solution to the original problem I posed, in connection with the new Biscay1 airbase intended to mimick Coastal Command's onslaught across the Bay of Biscay in NYGM-RUb:

"Is it better, for realism, to be attacked frequently from an elite airbase by aircraft that rarely bomb [so-called 'scarecrow effect'], or less frequently by aircraft that always bomb."

Solution: Have two identical airbases, side-by-side, one of which is elite, the other is veteran (only for Biscay1, not for all airbases). It won't greatly increase the number of attacks - but the player will never know when he is about to be bombed. That should induce the correct kind of behaviour from the U-boat commander. I'll test this ASAP. With a bottle of tranquillizers handy.

Stiebler.

[Stiebler]

I’ve now tried out the idea of a double Biscay1 airbase, one veteran, one elite. Also took the opportunity to try out (again) Cdre Gib’s idea of changing the flak-gun travel tolerance, and Von Helsching’s idea of an unqualified flak crew.

Using RUb, with Jace11’s Air Power Mod at 1200m flak range. Until I added Biscay1 to RUb, it was very rare indeed to see an aircraft when crossing the Bay of Biscay on the surface. After the addition, you see aircraft frequently.

In summary, sailing out to the Atlantic across the Bay of Biscay from Brest or Lorient, in April 1943 (raw crew, VIIC) and in May 1943 (experienced, qualified crew, IXC). I allowed the U-boat to be attacked a total of 12 times, by Hurricanes (1x), Catalinas (5x), Sunderlands (3x) and Liberators (3x). The composition of the Biscay1 airbase changes between April and May 1943. Wind speeds up to 9 m/s, day and night attacks.

Flak armament was 1 single 37 mm and 1 single 20 mm (a Flak-38) cannon in all cases. NO aircraft was shot down during its first approach run. One Hurricane and one Catalina were shot down in subsequent attacks. EVERY aircraft was hit and damaged during its first approach run. The qualified flak crew did not appear to be more effective than the unqualified crew.

EVERY aircraft dropped bombs on its first pass, despite evasive manoeuvres of full starboard rudder/flank speed. U-boat sunk six times after 1st pass, once after 2nd pass.

I was quite impressed by the realism of all this, taken in the context of air attacks on U-boats in the Bay of Biscay at this time. Clearly, the double Biscay base seems to have solved the ‘no-bombing’ problem of the Elite airbases. The number of attacks during the crossing is about right. And Gibs’ gun-laying alteration was far more effective with the simple guns here than with the twin Flak-37 (37 mm) and two sets of twin Flak-38 (20 mm) tested later in the war, and reported earlier in this thread, when almost everything was shot down during its first attack run. So it’s still necessary to improve the aircraft protection later in the war.

It’s necessary to emphasise that this test was with RUb/Jace11 fitted, which restricts the number of attacking aircraft. Standard SH3 allows attacks on U-boats by many aircraft at once, and then the flak simply won’t be able to divide its fire fast enough to stop all bombing runs.

Finally, I must mention that all but two of the attacks gave plenty of radar warning (detected by Stiebler’s radar_detection.exe mod), so that it was quite easy to dodge the attacks, if I had wished to do so. In fact, I deliberately dived to avoid most night-time encounters, just so that it was possible to see things clearly on the surface during daytime. The aircraft that avoided detection doubtless were carrying 10cm radar, for which neither test U-boat was fitted with a receiver. But that was realistic too.

Stiebler.

[CCIP]

EVERY aircraft dropped bombs on its first pass, despite evasive manoeuvres of full starboard rudder/flank speed. U-boat sunk six times after 1st pass, once after 2nd pass.

You need to make your manuevers a bit more varied - I rarely get sunk on the first pass (maybe one in 20 runs) :)

Anyway, that's beside the point.

Looking forward to seeing this.

My only reservation is that a double-base might make plane appearances a little too frequent. Perhaps dropping the probability a little bit in AirStrike.cfg might be in order.

[Stiebler]

CCIP said:
You need to make your manuevers a bit more varied - I rarely get sunk on the first pass (maybe one in 20 runs)......
My only reservation is that a double-base might make plane appearances a little too frequent. Perhaps dropping the probability a little bit in AirStrike.cfg might be in order.
Suggestions noted, thanks for both.

I felt that airstrike frequency was about right for the Biscay area for the tested dates. However, I agree that the default frequency would become too high if this pairing of elite/veteran airbases were employed widely.

Stiebler.

[VonHelsching]

I think Stiebler is right. The Bay of Biscay should have the highest concentration of allied airforce. It was one of the "choke points" for incoming and outgoind u-boats, before dispercing to the US, Africa, UK, Arctic, since all bases were pretty close to each other (from a planes' point of view).

Other than that, it might as well as be worth it to put some vetaran "invisible" airbases between the middle of the Atlantic and the UK to simulate aircraft carriers later in the war (unless if someone has not done this already).

Also, lastly, I may add that while using my XXI between Bergen and the UK I noticed that air traffic was minimal during 1945. I could do the trip Bergen ---> Scapa 70% on the surface :o (and of course blasting everything larger than a seagul with my U-flak Aces). This is not realistic for this area, right? - The coverage I mean - What is the coverage up there in the vanilla game? (using only HT 1.47 whithout Air Power mod)

[CCIP]

Other than that, it might as well as be worth it to put some vetaran "invisible" airbases between the middle of the Atlantic and the UK to simulate aircraft carriers later in the war (unless if someone has not done this already).

It should be. RUb/Ops has an invisible base in the vicinity of Greenland to provide coverage through the "air gap" after mid-1943.

[LukeFF]

IThe qualified flak crew did not appear to be more effective than the unqualified crew.

To me that shouldn't be so. An unqualified flak crew (i.e., one without a flak-qualified petty officer) should be close to useless when using the flak guns, while one with a qualified PO should be slightly better.

To put in numerical terms, an unqualified crew should be hitting the target about 3-4% of the time, whilst a qualified one should be hitting about 8-10% of the time, IMO. Otherwise, the Flak qualification is useless.

[Der Teddy Bar]

IThe qualified flak crew did not appear to be more effective than the unqualified crew.

To me that shouldn't be so. An unqualified flak crew (i.e., one without a flak-qualified petty officer) should be close to useless when using the flak guns, while one with a qualified PO should be slightly better.

To put in numerical terms, an unqualified crew should be hitting the target about 3-4% of the time, whilst a qualified one should be hitting about 8-10% of the time, IMO. Otherwise, the Flak qualification is useless.
Uhm maybe you missed the default Laser Guided AA?

I am not surprised of the result.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Has anyone verified or rebuked Cdre Gibs claimes regarding the reduced effective hit rate when using 0.5 for both AA guns traverse and elevation tolerence?

[LukeFF]

Uhm maybe you missed the default Laser Guided AA?

I am not surprised of the result.

Oh, I certainly was. All I am saying is that the Flak qualification should have some effect whilst not making the gunners super-accurate. I've shot at moving targets myself, while both standing still and moving, and know how hard it is to shoot accurately.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Best way is to test it yourself. Nothing like first hand experiance to help make up your mind.
Thankyou for the recap. Nice find BTW.

If time wasn't such an issue then I would have instead of asking :up:

[Stiebler]

Cdre Gibs wrote:
The twin Flak-37 (37 mm) and two sets of twin Flak-38 (20 mm) tested later in the war that Stiebler refers to was with higher settings and should really be retested. Untill they are this test is not accurate. However I have noticed a big differance with my Flack set to 0.5. for any given war period.

Actually, I used the identical guns_sub.sim file for both tests, modified to allow 1 degree movement in the flak guns (was 15 deg in the original file, you recommended 0.5 degrees). So the comparison was fair and accurate.

Does the difference between my 1 degree and your 0.5 degree matter? According to your own explanation in the previously-cited thread, changing to 1 degree removes 93.33% of the permitted flak movement tolerance; changing to 0.5 deg removes 96.67%. There is no theoretical reason for the 3.34% difference between us to make a huge difference. I happen to like doing things in integers, you apparently like doing things in 0.25 steps.

Stiebler.