RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


Empire101 -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (4/2/2012 12:57:15 AM)

A great guide....thanks LoBaron![8D]




DHRedge -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/23/2013 9:48:57 AM)

Would it increase the chance of some fighters covering, if they flew as sub groups AB and C(10 each), instead of one group of 30 fighters? To make sure some passed the coordination checks.

Do subgroups at same base incur a higher count of groups flying from airfield for support and af max group requirements?




LoBaron -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/23/2013 9:50:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DHRedge

Would it increase the chance of some fighters covering, if they flew as sub groups AB and C(10 each), instead of one group of 30 fighters? To make sure some passed the coordination checks.


Yes, but it comes at a price: A crucial variable for coordination rolls is the leadership value. Since, when you split groups into sub components, usually two of the three get sub par leaders (one remains with the original group commander), a split without leader exchange will decrease mission performance (both in coordination as in combat skill). Personally I use sub components only on very specific occasions, none of them involve combat with large formations.

The only mission type where I split units into their sub components per default is recon.

quote:


Do subgroups at same base incur a higher count of groups flying from airfield for support and af max group requirements?


Subgroups count as 1/3 with regards to base administrative stacking. As do fragments, and "stood down" squadrons (training mission set to 0%).




Numdydar -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/24/2013 7:26:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The High altitude corner

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight an air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.



Good guide, but I have to strongly disagree with the above. The game mechnics do allow this to be an exploit.

If I am an AFB commander, I am going to set my CAP within the best altitude range for my available planes. For Japan, this ususally means below 20K. If I pick up an Allied sweep at over 40K in altitude, I will tell my pilots to ignore them UNLESS they drop down to a closer delta. Depending on the weather, it is entirely possible for the CAP and the sweep to completely ignore each other, i.e. neither side even knows the other is there at all.

However, the game forces the CAP player to attack regardless of the number of sweeping planes, their Alt, etc. There is no mechnisim in the game that will allow the player to say ignore sweep that are X alitidute higher than my CAP. As a pilot, I can tell you a 20K difference is huge. If the sweep dives down to see if there is anything there, it is likely the CAP will also notice and respond (or not).

To mitigate the way the game models, the best HR I have seen so far is to limit max altitude for all air operations for both sides to 29K. This still gives plenty of room to manuver and allows the game engine to more accurately portray the way Air to Air combat worked in RL.

I did find an actual WWII fighter training video where US CAP was shown to fly 500 ft below cloud cover or around 12K if the sky was clear. Just because the game allows planes to fly at max levels, does not mean that is what happened in RL.




LoBaron -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/24/2013 7:54:35 PM)

I am aware that most think so. I even agree with most of what you say, including that a high alt sweep, taken literally, has no counterpart in reality.

But in an abstracted way the strato sweeps very much reflect the change of performance envelopes of Allied and Japanese fighters throughout the war. Early war most Allied fighters had severe performance issues at high alt, while at the end the Allied late generation fighters with turbosuperchargers dominated the sky, fighting in the vertical in ways impossible to replicate by the Japanese. I know that a sweep at 42k has nothing to do with reality. So I abstract these values to simple altitude superiority, and the result is quite plausable.

Also, as I wrote in the part you quoted, a high alt sweep is far from invincible. Most players simply do not stagger and set their CAP in any sophisticated way to defend against sweeps and bombing attacks alike, fight in the wrong places, or with insufficient support or numbers. But if done properly it is absolutely possible to defeat high alt sweeps, except if one or more of the issues occur which I listed in your quote. This is also evident in our game, where for example a good number of Georges supported by proper early warning hold their own against P47D25s on a regular basis.

That said, I have long ago given up of trying to convince anyone on that.

Solutions like 2nd best mvr band are a viable option, although it lends the alt advantage to a couple of airframes which then profit from their alt band settings in an ahistorical way (e.g. the Tony). If the Japanese player knows how to exploit the alt band restriction by producing specific airframes, the games run into problems similar or worse to when not restricting alt bands.

Each to his own IŽd say. Personally I will never play a game with alt restrictions.




Numdydar -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/25/2013 4:26:52 AM)

Well my current game is being played with no alt restrictions and my experence as Japan is far different than yours [:(]. I have had 500 fighters Georges, Jacks (v5), Zero's 5c and 5's, along with Franks and Tojo's. Each type was set at differing altidutes, max for the Georges and Jacks, 20-29K for the zero's and under 20K for the Franks and Tojo's and my losses were about 1.5:1 - 2:1 (or more) in the Allies favor. This is with the beta though so that may have something to do with it. Also this was occuring in Oct/Nov 1944 which may be an issue. So I think that when you get to a certain point in the war, the high altitude and speed of the Allied planes totally outweigh everything else. With good pilots in most of these too (execpt for the Tojo's).

A high (40K+) sweep would come in of P47 (or similar) and they would lose 1 and I would lose 3 or more every time. So if I was doing something wrong, I would love to know what [:)]




LoBaron -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/25/2013 7:51:49 PM)

Why should a 1:2 or even 1:5 kill ratio defending against sweeps of the cream of Allied fighter technology in Ž44 be considered anything else than a success? Seems you are doing fine.

Anyways, if you want to continue this discussion feel free to PM. [:)]




Numdydar -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (6/26/2013 3:38:39 AM)

Really? Good to know I don't totally stink as Japan lol. Somehow I thought in my JFB fantasy it should be much better [:D] Thanks for the feedback. No need to PM now [:)]




Richard III -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (7/5/2013 10:47:52 PM)

My understanding of the details of Air Model has always been weak. Respectfully, Would this be mostly up to date considering the updates and patches, especially the recent Betas ?




LoBaron -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (7/7/2013 9:01:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

My understanding of the details of Air Model has always been weak.


Actually thats a good attitude to learn about it. It is much better than to believe you know everyting, run headlong into incomprehensible situations, and then search for errors within the game engine instead of own errors.

The air model hides a LOT. You have to test, and look closely, and avoid confusing cause and effect, to reach conclusions. Thats a lot of work. I think my understanding of the air model is quite good now, but it took me a long time (and some valuable input from people who know much more about that stuff than myself) to get there.

For a source code as old as the UV engine the air model is absolutely brilliant. You need to abstract a lot and tune your play to the capabilities of the engine, but if you do it it is often surprizingly close to what you would expect from reality. Theres a lot of stuff happening beneath the obvious layer of calculations. Many players ignore that for their own bad.

OTOH, compared to the capabilities of a modern source code it is mediocre at best. Missions are point to point, most complex properties are reduced to a few variables, in general the simulation is crude compared to what is possible now, and you require the implementation of (often abstracted) limitations to achieve credible results (code wise and/or HR wise).

Prayers for WitP II are ongoing...



quote:

Respectfully, Would this be mostly up to date considering the updates and patches, especially the recent Betas ?


Yes, with one minor exception. The coordination triggers are not equal anymore - granted they were initially, which I got no proof for. Michaelm eradicated an overcoordination bug, and a few patches latter increased the influence of leader skill and HQ on coordination. So there would be some factors stronger influencing coordination than others.

Also from a current perspective there are some parts missing.

I currently do not plan to update the guide anymore though. It is still correct, and I am not in contact with any of the devs nowerdays which would be a prerequisite to add minor changes in the detail level required. Also I do not have the time anymore to write extensive guides worthy of this forum, so I better leave it to people who do. [;)]




czert2 -> RE: The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1! (3/5/2014 4:41:23 PM)

shaless bump as thanks for guide :)




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.015625