DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Target for Tonight
HTML https://targetfortonight.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: New Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12--------------------------------------------------
ON CREW SKILL/EXPERIENCE discussion
By: Flying Dutchman Date: June 3, 2020, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting, actually that interesting i have just bought
it off Amazon :) So a tight turn is better than a corkscrew, so
Banking could be changed to Tight Turn?
Simon
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 3:04 PM bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
wrote:
David and Simon,
Before I respond regarding evasive action, you may want to read
this FIU report no 201:
Dont have this ebook unfortunately, because report no 47 also
seems related.
HTML https://books.google.de/books?id=MYxaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT47&lpg=PT47&dq=report+no+201+night+combat+trials+with+a+lancaster&source=bl&ots=l-23dS9QHp&sig=ACfU3U1-ReZqe6EiwOcN2UjDh0Iuaw9E8Q&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9o7qPkuPpAhVKsaQKHb6GD2oQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=report%20no%20201%20night%20combat%20trials%20with%20a%20lancaster&f=false
Very interesting, these mods will way improve the game again.
So Banking Skill, has to be before a VC/SM attack and the +2
roll on table 5-10 (new charts) + 2 if VC or SM attack and Plane
has Banked, this then means you either bank, corkscrew,or
nothing, not pick corkscrew and also bank.
Simon
"I suppose you mean table 5-6, with a -1 modifier for Flieger
and Novice, sound ok for starters."
I didn't think 5-6 initially, as I wouldn't imagine weaving
would be erratic enough for a NF not to see (or to lose visual
of) a bomber, I guess it'd depend on how long each leg of the
roll was held? As I believe you'd mentioned it only served as an
annoyance to non-vets, so, it wouldn't have really affected
their ability to spot them. However, a modifier on 5-6 would
reflect Novice and Flieger's choice to scope out an easier
target, right? So, I think -1 there should be fine. I was
originally thinking of weaving as being a bit of a help to spot
NF's, similar to how you anticipate banking when it comes to
spotting VC and SM - ultimately, I do like how banking has
turned out, so I'd be fine focusing more on that particular
topic rather than weaving. If weaving is incorporated, it
affecting just 5-6 seems ok with me.
"Agree, but what table for +2?"
I sort of envision these maneuvers to affect the bombers' crew
in spotting the NF. Thus, the primary table these would come
into play on would be 5-10 Bomber spotting NF. If bomber does
spot NF, then it gives a chance for the exchange of fire to be
simultaneous, rather than bomber taking hits, and going straight
to the continuation roll. Similar to weaving, I wouldn't imagine
banking would necessarily affect a NF's ability to continue an
attack on a bomber, or to keep visual on it. Maybe it would have
some affect on increasing/decreasing chance of collision as
well?
Requirements seem good. I also like the idea of rolling for
potential skill gain after each op. If a crew member maxes out
their position, maybe they can switch with another crew member
on some ops to try an be more well-rounded? Though, dunno how
realistic that'd be.
Are you thinking along the lines of having a number of potential
skills available, and then maybe after the crew accrue enough
points, they can purchase one/some? If so, maybe we can start
making a running list of potential skills that would apply to
the different crew positions.
I wish the nav system was a little more complex (so you'd have a
better idea of how off-course result occurred, and how the crew
get back on course - more immersive), are you guys familiar with
the navigation system in Steve Dixon's other game B-29?
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:18 PM bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
wrote:
Renamed topic to: "ON CREW SKILL/EXPERIENCE" for better
identifying topic at first glance in your email box.
David and crew,
GENERAL.
All attemps at mechanics in the game are basically designed to
represent a certain cold, impersonal but statistically viable
baseline.
Zooming in into the individual crew, some realistic coloring may
be both fun and still historically accurate.
At first I wil suggest coupling skills to a fixed OP number as
experience rises. Simple.
But actually I would prefer a system in which after each OP you
roll to see if your crew has "learned" some new tricks/ropes.
Less simple, but more suspenseful and realistic, as crews
obviously differ.
If succesful (greater chance with increasing number of OPS) you
then can "aquire" a new skill, something along the lines of NF
ACE from Greg Smith. Any ideas on that welcome.
WEAVING SKILL.
(continuous heading and altitude changes around a base course
and altitude)
"So maybe, 5-10 has a +1 for weaving against Novice of Flieger -
but at the expense of 0.1 or 0.2 fuel, and hopefully in the
future perhaps navigation points?"
I suppose you mean table 5-6, with a -1 modifier for Flieger and
Novice, sound ok for starters.
Requirements:
-From an experience level of say 5+ OPS?
-Navigation is NOT off track?
-Gives -1 on table 5-15 navigation per Zone.
-Cost 0.1 fuel/Zone.
-NOT in the Target Zone (lining up for bomb run, feeling exposed
with good reason)
-Versus Flieger and Novice -1 on table 5-6.
-May be done on 3+ engines. (or 2 for Wimpy)
-requires elevators and ailerons undamaged
There should be (a slight?) advantage in using this skill, so if
cumulatively drawbacks overrule its use, we have it wrong.
The fuel penalty of 0.1 means an inefficiency to the standard
burn (as Harvey choose the norm at 1.0 which matches the
standard burn of 100% as well) of 10%. Costly, but seems
plausible.
NB. IRL the pilots started weaving entering the fighter belt
(about crossing/nearing the north sea coast), but often NOT the
whole trip.
BANKING SKILL.
(frequently putting the old gal on a wingtip, letting gunner(s)
check directly underneath)
Requirements:
-From an experience level of 15 OPS?
-No fuel cost (if a/c undamaged, by now the pilot can fly
coordinated enough causing minimum drag)
-all engines only (a steep bank to dead engine unwise)
-NOT in TZ.
-Only versus all NF about to execute VC or SM attack (so before)
Roll for occurance: 1D6: 1-3 spotting chance, go to table 5-10 /
4-6 no effect. (or 1,2 / 3-6?)
If spotted attack fails (and then?), and check for collision.
Return to table 5-10 and ignore all modifiers regarding window,
monica, SM attack.
"maybe add +2 for L/R banking and yes 15+ missions seems
reasonable - by then they should have a better grasp of those
nuanced skills/tricks."
Agree, but what table for +2?
Any thoughts?
Rob.
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Mai 2020 um 18:28 Uhr
Von: "David Damrel" <david.damrel@gmail.com>
An: "bob marley" <robocop01@gmx.net>
Cc: "NIGEL HODGE" <nsrj@btinternet.com>, "Christopher Schall"
<airborne@zoominternet.net>, "GLENN SAUNDERS"
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>, "Richard A Martin" <martinrick@msn.com>,
"mr s haines" <horsarider@gmail.com>, "Rob Wagner"
<ronez@freenet.de>
Betreff: Re: Re: Some facts on bomber crew experience
Rob,
Points well-taken! So maybe, 5-10 has a +1 for weaving against
Novice of Flieger - but at the expense of 0.1 or 0.2 fuel, and
hopefully in the future perhaps navigation points? So you
potentially avoid NF combat, but only if you're willing to burn
some extra fuel, and risk some increased chance of being
off-course. Perhaps more a strategy for early outbound, and
definitely inbound tracks. By outside stream do you mean like
1/3, 3/3 or out of formation? If formation, then add the
stipulation for weaving as ineffective if not in formation?
The spotting roll for banking, would be separate from Bomber
detection of NF? Like an outright spot that negates the
detection table? I would think maybe add +2 for L/R banking and
yes 15+ missions seems reasonable - by then they should have a
better grasp of those nuanced skills/tricks.
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:24 PM bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
wrote:
David,
Thanks for taking my efforts serious, all based on OPS....
The result of weavers as far as I read (so its my subjective
interpretation, no ORS on this) was restricted.
Experienced crews did it, mentioned flying straight over the
reich in a fully laden bomber was suicide. Makes sense.
On the other hand, navigation was hampered, and miles per gallon
dropped slightly too.
And again, aces were not always impressed, but the common herd
would rather switch to a less annoying target.
Maybe a chance to lose the NF if flying on course in stream on
5-10 like you suggest so +1 seems plausible to me.
Another reward for good navigation.
And on the other hand, as my todays story about Shillinglaws
Stirling being off track showed, being the only "trade" around
makes
for a tenacious attack, so outside stream not so effective.
As for the banking, probably even more useful if done at regular
intervals, the only chance to spoil the hun below, ready for a
VC or SM attack...
So with this skill allow a "spotting roll" if an unspotted NF is
about to execute a VC or SM attack.
Say a roll of 1 or 1,2 in order not to make it too effective,
and excluding the TZ.
Also for say crews of 15+ missions, just an idea.
Giving the crew this and the other "tools" as experience builds,
seemed like a good idea.
Couple that with Pilot, NAV and F/E skills and the attachment to
your crew will grow, IF they make it out of the sprog phase...
DISCLAIMER: altough I am highly in favor of crew experience
effects, ORS determined that "the Burton" was practically
equally divided amongst all experience levels...
Rob.
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2020 um 17:40 Uhr
Von: "David Damrel" <david.damrel@gmail.com>
An: "bob marley" <robocop01@gmx.net>
Cc: "NIGEL HODGE" <nsrj@btinternet.com>, "Christopher Schall"
<airborne@zoominternet.net>, "GLENN SAUNDERS"
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>, "Richard A Martin" <martinrick@msn.com>,
"mr s haines" <horsarider@gmail.com>, "Rob Wagner"
<ronez@freenet.de>
Betreff: Re: Some facts on bomber crew experience
This one has stuck with me awhile as well. Not sure if it gained
much traction in the convo after this.
Weaving, and banking if added should be to Bomber detection of
NF 5-10? Maybe like '+1 if Pilot >10 missions due to weaving'
and similarly perhaps a +2 to banking or something? Or does that
increase the chance of spotting to much to be realistic?
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:39 AM bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
wrote:
Well....
First off, some blabla:
28:430= With 6.5% loss they came away "ok" for a trip all the
way to the big city. Why?
The relative low number of attacking bombers for´44 probably
points to the time the Halifaxes were also withdrawn from
Berlin/deep german targets, and the attackers were ALL
Lancasters. (Wimpys, Stirlings and now HalibagsII/V even III,
just cannot sustainably attack with loss rates ~13%+)
Neuremberg march 44: 795 Lancs and Hal IIIs take off...
Full moon, contrails, no dogleg on final stretch.
Biggest loss ever for BoCo:
95 bombers shot down makes 12% loss,
12 bombers crashed in UK (many more a/c various levels of
damage),
So 107 heavy bombers written off, with more crew deaths/POW in
one night than during whole battle of britain...
The Luftwaffe nightfighters were only arm of third reich staying
effective until the end of the war, even if waning due
attrition, lack of fuel ect.
Anyway:
I just read that the first and last 5 missions were most
dangerous. Last 5 a psychological thing, about getting "stale",
have to look it up to say precisely. Experienced crews report
that flying straight was simply suicidal.
The designers tried to spice things up/give some decisions with
weapon mods, but one could expand on that with other measures.
Experienced crews tried to migitate chances this by:
1-Fly in a weaving pattern, and climbing and descending 500-600
feet irregurlary. Makes total sense, Glenn posted a utube USAAF
instruction film about guided flak tactics, says it all, worth
checking out..(widespread evidence)
2-Bank a/c steeply at regular intervals to check for NF
underneath (widespread evidence)
3-"Modify" (405 Sqd RCAF, Lanc) government property (dont think
brits would allow that).
Cutting out round piece fuselage behind bomb bay, attach elec
heating and oxy sockets, place mid upper gunner facing down
there as watch below.
Mid upper turret removed to decrease drag and weight. This was
smart, but NOT widespread! (but then, maybe your crew would..)
If NF spottet below, pilot pushed column full forward, about to
crash into NF below, scaring wits out of Fritz who "never came
back for another medicin".
After the navigator lost all charts ect and slammed the canopy
because of negative G of manoevre the first time, hipbeld was
constructed for him.
(seldom, but evidence exists)
4-"Modify" with little glass belly bulge, same principle.
Photographic evidence installation in HAL II/V/III. (not so
widespread)
5-Modify with Preston Greenhouse, Halifaxes (comparable thing
stirlings few a/c), adding .50 cal for good measure. Then no
H-2-S possible. French and Canadian Sqd. used it more it seems.
No H2S seen as great drawback. (not widespread)
6-All types: veteran tail gunners removing perspex part in front
of them in turret. Removed "perspex fighters" phenomenon (just a
speck on the glass causing a lot of fuzz) and clearly improved
visibility/spotting chance. (widespread evidence)
7-ALL crew exept navigator are watching outside for friendly and
enemy a/c. Less chance collisions, less chance surprise
attack.(could be widespread, not sure)
This could be stuff for the mod, to those that want to see their
chances increase, as their crew gains experience...
Cheers all, Rob.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Mai 2020 um 22:35 Uhr
Von: "NIGEL HODGE" <nsrj@btinternet.com>
An: "Christopher Schall" <airborne@zoominternet.net>, "GLENN
SAUNDERS" <gcsaunders@shaw.ca>, "Richard A Martin"
<martinrick@msn.com>, "mr s haines" <horsarider@gmail.com>
Cc: "David Damrel" <david.damrel@gmail.com>, "bob marley"
<robocop01@gmx.net>
Betreff: Re: Here are the modifications I think I’m going to use
when I play TfTN
Some busy tail gunners in action there.
Nigel.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Richard A Martin" <martinrick@msn.com>
To: "mr s haines" <horsarider@gmail.com>; "GLENN SAUNDERS"
<gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; "NIGEL HODGE" <nsrj@btinternet.com>;
"Christopher Schall" <airborne@zoominternet.net>
Cc: "David Damrel" <david.damrel@gmail.com>; "bob marley"
<robocop01@gmx.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May, 20 At 20:27
Subject: Re: Here are the modifications I think I’m going to use
when I play TfTN
Good lord!
Sincerely,
Rick Martin
From: mr s haines <horsarider@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:24 PM
To: GLENN SAUNDERS <gcsaunders@shaw.ca>; NIGEL HODGE
<nsrj@btinternet.com>; Christopher Schall
<airborne@zoominternet.net>
Cc: David Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>; Richard A Martin
<martinrick@msn.com>; bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Here are the modifications I think I’m going to use
when I play TfTN
1944 Berlin one mission 30000 aa shells fired 90 night fighters
430 bombers 28 bombers lost 15 night fighters lost. Just one
night
On 12 May 2020, at 20:05, GLENN SAUNDERS <gcsaunders@shaw.ca>
wrote:
I think so Nigel.
And I was starting to lose interest there after a while,
especially when I got into NFA and found so many discrepancy.
Not that NFA is right and TfTn was wrong.
For example NFA targets are I think wrong for the period after
Feb 1944.
There was a long build up starting in March for French targets
right into June.
I haven't looked at beyond July yet.
Anyway we have a pretty good game now and I'm going to see what
I can do now with this crew that survived a trip to Berlin.
Again following my historical targets ...I'll be making several
runs deep into Germany in Jan Feb 1944
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: NIGEL HODGE <nsrj@btinternet.com>
Date: 2020-05-12 12:54 p.m. (GMT-07:00)
To: Christopher Schall <airborne@zoominternet.net>, GLENN
SAUNDERS <gcsaunders@shaw.ca>, simon haines
<horsarider@gmail.com>
Cc: David Damrel <david.damrel@gmail.com>, Richard A Martin
<martinrick@msn.com>, bob marley <robocop01@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Here are the modifications I think I’m going to use
when I play TfTN
Really glad you're enjoying the game again. It looks as though
between us we've got it more useable.
Nigel.
------ Original Message ------
From: "GLENN SAUNDERS" <gcsaunders@shaw.ca>
To: "simon haines" <horsarider@gmail.com>; "Christopher Schall"
<airborne@zoominternet.net>
Cc: "Richard A Martin" <martinrick@msn.com>; "NIGEL HODGE"
<nsrj@btinternet.com>; "bob marley" <robocop01@gmx.net>; "David
Damrel" <david.damrel@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May, 20 At 19:29
Subject: Here are the modifications I think I’m going to use
when I play TfTN
1) One Engine Out - pilot not over 10 missions no full corkscrew
but If NF spotted I roll 1D6 ....1-3 I allow the evasive account
modifier for some chance to spoil the shot. This idea that a
BOMBER can’t corkscrew with an engine out comes from playing
NFA. Reality is it is not black and white ...there are
variables, pilot experience, load ....bomb and I suppose fuel,
even time to react so I think this is reasonable.
2) again, based on NFA, if Bomber spots NF, fire is applied
simultaneously....so FCA -1 applies next round, not this round.
3) ammo/fuel roll to limit excessive rounds of or endless rounds
of NF attacks ....I start this roll on round 3
If 1-3 is rolled, ....because of where the chart is on Chris’s
sheets and I already have the NF on the board, lined up in his
clock position, I allow the shot this round and break off AFTER
the shot on round three. This give the nightfighter as many
rounds as the fighters in TfT.
****RECOMMEND remove the 2nd pass line in the ammo break off
table
With these, the goal is to not completely gut the NF
Effectiveness of attack, because there are a lot less NF now
with our revised kammhuber die rolls.
My last mission the Target was in zone 11
Kammhuber was successful 4 times on the ten outbound zones
....one Random Event was rolled and one 0 NF encountered.
Actually I rolled 0 NF twice because when Flak took out the
engine near the target and I had to roll twice in zone ten For
NF and both times rolled Zero NF encountered.
Kammhuber was successful two tine on the inbound leg. First
combat was broken off after three rounds due to the new Ammo
roll rule. The second attack was broken off by a close call on
collision with the NF after two rounds.
Flak accounted for three hits. ...once on Medium flak on two
tries outbound
One hit from two heavy AA rounds also inbound
And another from Heavy AA, LOW over the target ....so on ten die
rolls total for heavy AAA I only caused two hits to the Bomber.
I think this is good without being excessive
Damage tally’s to my Lancaster was to 235 Peckham points
...includes
20 Superficial hits and 12 system hits, and a SW flight engineer
Result is four days repair time.
I’m really starting to enjoy this game more again.
Glenn
Sent from my iPad
*****************************************************