Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: unrealistic air combat...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: unrealistic air combat... Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 [13] 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/1/2008 9:07:34 PM   
JeffK


Posts: 5197
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Your website seems to link to itself.


Why should this be a problem? I presume you think it is?

Yes, normally you wouldnt use yourself to confirm something you said. They do provide excellent backup in these cases but I wouldnt see this as a guarantee for all cases. In this case, I am confident of my source for the RNZAF Hudson shot down

quote:

I havent yet tried night missions in UV, might give them a bash and see how they go.


Please do, and let us know the results ( as and when you feel it is OK if on PBEM ) IDC.

I set up Scen 1 with ALL aircraft on night missions, the Aussie Hudsons raided Lae but despite having all CV's in 1 hex (The 1st O in Solomons Sea) not one carrier aircraft from either side flew. So no combat results and no Ops losses!!

I'll try some base attacks next.

Dont play PBEM, turned off many years back and I see from these forum that behaviour hasnt changed (Probably guilty myself)





< Message edited by JeffK -- 8/1/2008 9:11:12 PM >


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 361
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/1/2008 10:34:39 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 362
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/1/2008 10:36:20 PM   
DEB


Posts: 535
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Yes, normally you wouldnt use yourself to confirm something you said. They do provide excellent backup in these cases but I wouldnt see this as a guarantee for all cases. In this case, I am confident of my source for the RNZAF Hudson shot down


The backup here is the cross reference given to an input by another person. Seems ok to me.


quote:

Dont play PBEM, turned off many years back and I see from these forum that behaviour hasnt changed (Probably guilty myself)


Don't blame you at all!

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 363
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/1/2008 10:48:55 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Interesting. Of course you fail to admit that the radar in this A/C was so poor it needed searchlights to assist! See below:-


I did not "fail" to "admit" anything. There's nothing to admit. The P-70 was a p.o.s. The J1N was another p.o.s. The P-70 was the first of the two with airborne radar. It did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light. Considering that it was bascally an A-20 with some cannons, its failure is no great surprise. The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).

quote:

So they did use radar, just not in our period!


No one said otherwise. The early J1Ns didn't have radar. Of the intercepts previously mentioned, the two B-17s reasonably construed as shot down by a fighter at night were taken down by radarless a.c. directed by searchlight beam.

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 364
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 2:45:23 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5197
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.


Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you can have the thread all to yourself.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 365
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 4:55:16 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.



Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you can have the thread all to yourself.


Tocaff is correct JeffK. Serious, I couldn´t read a word from that text in that font color.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 366
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 12:48:00 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
Thank you Ike.  There was no intent on my part other than letting somebody know that to share what they think we must be able to see it in order to read it.  To many thin skinned people around taking offense where there is none......




_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 367
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 7:04:11 PM   
fuelli

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Germany
Status: offline
No offense but I had a problem with reading it as well.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 368
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 8:20:21 PM   
DEB


Posts: 535
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I did not "fail" to "admit" anything.


You denigrated the Irvings means of "targeting" whilst leaving out that the P-70 had similar problems. That's an admission failure to me.

quote:


The P-70 ... did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light.


That's not what the article I printed said.... , you can read ?

quote:

The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).


Hmm, are you upset about something?

quote:

No one said otherwise.


You implied it by ommission.

quote:

Of the intercepts previously mentioned, the two B-17s reasonably construed as shot down by a fighter at night were taken down by radarless a.c. directed by searchlight beam.


Did I say they were not?

quote:

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.


The later purpose built Night Fighter shot down several B-29's. I doubt those crews ( or their families ) would agree your "assessment".



(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 369
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 8:29:11 PM   
YUP

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2008
Status: offline
real jap air losses are 332[aproxamite]at midway

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 370
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 8:41:57 PM   
DEB


Posts: 535
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
It appears to me that whilst JeffK's "bright green" paragraph was rather garish, it was certainly NOT unreadable. Those who could be bothered to try to read it, could.

Tocaff, I am suprised. You actually sent a polite reply to IKE99!

Shame on you for the snide remark at the end though.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 371
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/2/2008 10:03:44 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
Maybe I'm big enough to be polite if I try. 

I have nothing against Ike, or anyone else here, as long as it's kept respectful by all parties.

The last remark was not meant as a cheap shot, just trying to point out that my remark about the color of the print had no barbs to it. We (all of us) tend to get a little touchy at times.


< Message edited by tocaff -- 8/8/2008 12:57:44 PM >


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 372
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/3/2008 12:08:48 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
YUP, that sounda about right, but most Jap losses at Midway were from getting blow up on flight decks before they were able to take off however.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 373
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/3/2008 12:30:20 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

You denigrated the Irvings means of "targeting" whilst leaving out that the P-70 had similar problems. That's an admission failure to me.


Not in the least. Neither a failure nor an admission of anything. My reply was to the claim that the Japanese fielded a NF first. Nothing more. Anyone making more of it is a fool with an agenda.

quote:

You implied it by ommission.


(Edited for the sake of civility).

Well, I also omitted mentioning a whole universe of things, so what other things did I "imply" by virtue of not stating them outright?

I'm just curious about the parameters of your logical system here. Is it a kind of Dadaist logic in which wholly unrelated things are presumed to be causally juxtaposed because of the disharmonious or possibly absurd imagery they evoke? Or is it more like a kind of Postmodernist Logic in which the heretofore complete absence of any specific mention, by myself, of Michelle Foucault is proof of Foucault's universal-pervasiveness?

quote:

The later purpose built Night Fighter shot down several B-29's.


Anyone could get lucky I suppose, assuming that they, in fact, did that. According to a number of sources (here I offer "Aircraft of WWII" by Stewart Wilson) "The Gekko was initially employed in the South-west and Central pacific where it was effective agianst the B-24 Liberator but not fast enough to trouble the B-29 Superfortress when employed in the home dfence role. Most ended their days as Kamikaze aircraft."

By which I take it that Wilson (like several other sources) regards the JnN1-Sa as strategically ineffectual against B-29s. In my view the Gekko was a poor design and not terribly good even as a night fighter. In part because its successes were few and far between, and also because pretty much every source regards it as a poor entry for the type. But as I noted before. A B-17 here. A B-24 there. Anyone can get lucky.



< Message edited by mdiehl -- 8/3/2008 6:31:03 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 374
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/8/2008 9:53:10 AM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
just a little side note on "unrealistic things": why it is impossible in UV to deploy B25 Mitchell bombers on YORKTOWN class carriers...?!?! It was indeed done in RL And that it was done is more than sufficient documented...

very excited what this gets up


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 375
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/8/2008 11:43:28 AM   
fuelli

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Germany
Status: offline
I think that exactly reflects the fundamental "problem" when comparing PC games to reality.
Its a fixed code with a given flexibility that can only represent a limited reality. And limited in this case means that things happened in RL that can not be done in the game and things happen in the game that maybe never happened in real life. The fact that things have been done x-times in RL will lead to the fact that these things will be done x times x in the game or maybe never. Fact is that this game won´t change anymore. Take it as it is or leave it.

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 376
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/8/2008 1:04:30 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
We all have various "issues" with this and other games.  Maybe we should try to remember that it's just a game and there's no way, at present time, to satisfy everybody's quest for their version of reality.

Once time travel, if possible, becomes a reality then you can travel back and participate (if you dare) in the actual events and really see what the reality of the day was.  Until then we only have verbal (fewer all the time) and written accounts from the vets who lived it.

Enjoy the game for what it is and either live with it's shortfalls or search for another option that better suits you.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to fuelli)
Post #: 377
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/8/2008 1:12:53 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
Shooting down a B-29 was a daunting task for the virtually green Japanese fighter pilots of the day.  Maybe the planes that the Japanese used were better than you think and the pilots stunk. 

A B-29 formation was loaded with, computer (yep) controlled by the flight engineer from the dorsal (top) turret, .50 cal mgs that could be deadly as hell.  The Japanese were decreasingly willing to engage these formations as I showed with the flight log from a crewman posted in the WITP forum.

The downside for these planes was when mining the inland sea a single bullet into 1 of the bomb bays could result in a fireball in the sky.

Also the listed speed of the B-29 was, if my shot memory serves, about 320 mph cruising.  Anybody who flew them would laugh at that # and say that the loaded (underpowered) planes flew much slower than that. 


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 378
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/10/2008 4:38:24 PM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
 I think it's pretty much agreed that that F4u's are just a tad over-rated. How much of a difference would it make if the US player agreed to move every other land based unit that arrived or upgraded to F4u's to rear areas such as the Santa Cruz bases or further south?

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 379
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/11/2008 1:43:02 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
Taking fighter squadrons out of the game isn't the answer because then you won't be able to CAP bases or escort attacks.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 380
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/11/2008 4:47:56 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
yeah, good point. I just figure there has to be some answer to give the US an advantage but to take some of the teeth out of the sidewinder armed F4U's out there.


Brian

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 381
I hope Martix reads this - 8/12/2008 3:02:56 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I read a while back someone talking about an air-to-air result in WiTP that was waaaaay past what could/should normally happen.... allow me to add one to the list.

Air combat at Lea Lea
19 F4u's vs 140+ zeros 61 Oscar, 65 nick, 21 tony fighters.....  losses...59 zeros, 16 Oscar, 18 nice, 7 tony. US losses, 1 fighter. There is no way they even carried enough ammo to shoot down that many. I could not believe it. I admittedly have not played may games to this point (7/43),  but this is a shock! At the risk of re-stating what has been said before.. what the ___ were the people at Matrix smoking when they came up with these air-to-air values. I know really understand why players say if you do not go for auto-victory as Japan, you cannot win. What a disappointment. I would love to hear someone justify how this in any way can be near historical.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 382
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/12/2008 3:06:48 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Air combat at Lea Lea
19 F4u's vs 140+ zeros 61 Oscar, 65 nick, 21 tony fighters..... losses...59 zeros, 16 Oscar, 18 nice, 7 tony. US losses, 1 fighter. There is no way they even carried enough ammo to shoot down that many. I could not believe it.


I think the Corsair is definately superior to the Japanese fighters, but as you mention, I´m of the opinion they are getting to many shots. They are modelled as carrying too much ammunition. I think this is the major problem with them.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 383
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/12/2008 3:17:10 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I agree Ike, it is far better. No contest. In my view I would take an f4u over a p-51 7 days a week in fact. However, I do not care how good the plane is, when outnumbered 9-1, they are not going to get a 10-1 kill ratio, not to mention 80-1.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 384
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/12/2008 1:49:55 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I agree Ike, it is far better. No contest. In my view I would take an f4u over a p-51 7 days a week in fact. However, I do not care how good the plane is, when outnumbered 9-1, they are not going to get a 10-1 kill ratio, not to mention 80-1.



The F4U is sort of a game ender. Once I get one squadron I'm good to go because it will, overnight, change the kill ratios in the air combat world so dramatically. The game handles the performance gap between the Zero and F4F poorly (your F4F's are nearly useless) but it handles the F4U - Zero gap even more poorly.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 385
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/12/2008 3:54:23 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
It would seem to me that the more people play the game the more aware they become of it's weaknesses.  Isn't that true for every game that you've ever delved into deeply?

So if they were to remodel the aircraft and their respective abilities the playing field would change.  If the naval abilities were examined and tweaked that too would change the game.

I wonder what changes CF will offer and what bugs will be brought to the table.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 386
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/12/2008 9:45:07 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3645
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

...I wonder what changes CF will offer and what bugs will be brought to the table.


There will always be bugs, but at least CF won't be an add-on to UV; they will have to go straight to Grigsby's source code to correct/tweak it and not just patch it.



_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 387
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 1:55:26 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6391
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
If you guys have specific, repeatable bugs with UV that you'd like fixed in CF, send me a save at justinp@matrixgames.com.

In the save, please include the following:

Game type (Human vs. Jap AI, etc)
Steps to Reproduce
Description of the bug.

If we just get heresay of the bug we really have no way to fix it. I can tell my testers to try and reproduce it BUT, if one of you has a save that already reproduces it, it will be a timesaver.

So please, if there are any UV bug saves, please send them to me. We can then see if a similar bug exists in CF.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 388
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 3:09:47 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
yes, there are always bugs, and things that could be made better. Overall UV is very fun up to about Feb or March 43. After that, as ILCK points out, everything changes. If you just up the values of p-40's ane f4f's, turn down the later allied fighters a bit, thing would be much better. Hopefully in carrier force this will be addressed.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 389
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 10:14:43 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3645
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

... If we just get heresay of the bug we really have no way to fix it. I can tell my testers to try and reproduce it BUT, if one of you has a save that already reproduces it, it will be a timesaver.


Remodeling some of the Allied aircraft isn't a bug, but it's common knowledge among UV players that the F4U is almost invincible vs. the A6, Oscar, and other enemy a/c.

But the real bug is the loading bug for fast transports, and that's not heresay; anyone who has played UV has seen this bug time and time again: the TF will either load troops, supplies, or sometimes neither w/o any discernable pattern. Even routine transports don't always load troops and supplies, compelling some UV players to load these TFs one ship at a time, and then combine them into one TF; very time consuming.

Just ask tocaff.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 12 [13] 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: unrealistic air combat... Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 [13] 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113