Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Da Vinci's Art of WarCivil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets Updated
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Patch has not changed air model ?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Patch has not changed air model ? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:09:12 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Either I have missed it or I was too ignorant, but I could not see a change in the patch notes about air engagements, especially fighter vs fighter. Now the pre patch situation was that a couple of people complaint about the stratosphere sweeps with Sputniks fighting Space Shuttles. I found a lot of new friends while expressing my thoughts on it. I pissed of people in the dozen and was one of the responsible for the boo boo of one (or more?) devs out of the forum. At that stage, we (I) were told that the sweep as it "was" would just be fine.

Lots of nice words were exchanged back then with the result of people (including officials) saying that all is just fine and well. Others were shaking their head either using what they were given or implementing hrs in their PBEMs. My PBEM was one of those that had no hrs on it and we both kept flying as high as possible. The result was 100% of the time (same as in my AI test game that has seen 1.5 years already - just for my private "after release testing") the fighters being in the highest position diving on the lower ones. Seems reasonable so far and physically correct of course as the higher flying has to dive on the lower flying if you want to engage. And the lower one would have to climb of course. The results of this "x diving on y" were similar to the WITP results of "x bounces y". In WITP, all you needed was multi radar coverage and the side that got more radar usually got the bounce, means the Allied were the ones that usually had the bounce from mid/late 42 everywhere as there where radar equipped base forces everywhere. Now AE was/is different to WITP of course. Until the last patch you got the "dive" when you came in higher. This was true in all the engagements in my PBEM and same was true for my AI test game. The results were off, just as in WITP. At that time I thought either the routine is off, or the aircraft stats would be as I constantly saw fighters fighting near 40.000ft that had no chance in real life to effectivly fight at those heights. For weeks, people stating this were called trolls and some more nice things until it was time for the latest patch. Now as we know, nothing was changed. At the same time, there were those official statements that people using stratosphere sweeps would game the game or exploit the game. Reading this for the first time I nearly spit my coffee over my monitor because I thought either my paranoia hit me again or I went totally nuts. What? For weeks there has been the statement everything is fine, the complainers are trolls and then out of a sudden itīs not all fine and people are exploiting something. Hmmm. There was then also the statement that the sweep has had this bonus ever since the code was written. Two statements that more than amazed me and those two statements could have avoided a lot of bad mood on both sides IMO if stated earlier. Now of course I donīt know if there was a change in oppinion or if it always was like this, no idea.

One more interesting thing about WITP was that altitude didnīt matter in air combat and therefore physics were upside down anyway. For example you could see fighters bouncing other fighters at heights, they couldnīt even reach. Radar made this possible. No doubt, AE did a lot to improve things, at least change things. In AE - until the lates patch - I couldnīt imagine fighters "diving" on other fighters that actuall flew higher than the diving fighters even can go. Well, since the latest patch, they obviously can. Again, either I missed it in the patch notes, or nothing was changed. Strange thing is, both my PBEM and my AI test game are completely upside down in this respect. No more stratosphere sweep with the highest fighter getting the "dive" for sure, now it is diffferent. Lol, wasnīt that what I was looking for? Yes, you could say. No, am I saying now. Why? Because it looks like - even though nothing was changed - on my PC Iīm back into WITP days with physics upside down.

An example: now I send in Lightnings on a sweep at 39.000ft. 8/42 no Japanese fighter can reach that high. Tojos and Oscars can go up to 38.500 ft and thatīs it. Pre patch would mean the Lightnings would get the dive first, no wonder, they are higher. No, not on my PC after the latest patch. Even though the enemy canīt go even that high, my Lightnings get bounced now. I sure get some answers about abstracted this or that, but this is not the point here. Last turn saw this:


Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 31 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 36



Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 22


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38E Lightning: 4 destroyed



CAP engaged:
24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 22 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters to 36740.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 2
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 30



Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 24


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38E Lightning: 3 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
2 x P-38E Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet

CAP engaged:
24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (9 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes




Besides the fact that the strike pack feature also hits here, forget about coordinating the two best US Army fighter squadrons when you have clear sky, normal range, HQ and all the other stuff that doesnīt help but people keep praising, it is just once again a funny result. The commercial pre release had this change so fine with me, people just should know thatīs how it works, no sorry, thatīs how it works most of the time, if you donīt have all your pilots at 70+ experience (something you wonīt reach within nearly a year of war if you actually fight and lose 5:1 most of the time if you do). Itīs a feature, ok, then be it.

But now, the first of the two split up strikes comes in and what do we see? Tojos diving on Lightnings. Funny I though, how can that be? I knew the Tojos couldnīt go that high. They were diving on my Lightnings though. Just as all kind of Allied fighters are now diving on Japanese fighters if the Allied can only go up 29.000 ft and the enemy is incoming at 38.000. True for the limited fighting in this PBEM AFTER the patch, not true for the extensive fighting in this PBEM BEFORE the patch. Also true for my 400 AI turns before the patch, not true for the 200 turns after the patch. Nothing was changed though, there were only the statements that we shouldnīt exploit the engine and that the sweep bonus was there since the release of UV. Hmm. Something must have screwed my PC and the one of my opponent of course as heīs sending me the replays that I always watch closely.

So what happened?

The fact that my Lightnings were shot out of the sky at a 5:1 rate by the Tojos is just a sidenote, the same 5:1 was achieved by the Tojos on sweep against Hurricanes and Warhawks. 3 Tojos reported downed over their own base for the loss of 16 Lightnings. Not bad, Iīm lucky, my opponent will only produce 100 of them each month, I will get 20 Lightnings a month and those should be able to take down 1.5 Tojos, my Warhawks will probably deal with the other 98.5. Those Lightnings were piloted by the best USAAF pilots on the map, the strike coordination bible was followed 110% (I even watched the SUPPORT on the base, no, not the aviation support, the SUPPORT - donīt believe it anyway that it has anything to do with it). Split up strike as usual (hey, castor troy, you really think two squadrons from the same huge base would attack together when they even fly the same aircraft? You canīt be serious castor troy) and the stratosphere sweep had no effect as the enemy got the dive, even though the enemy could not even reach us.

So nothing was changed, itīs different on my PC since then and physics donīt count anymore anyway? In the above example, the enemy had just a couple of minutes to reach my sweep at 39.000ft, the enemy couldnīt even go that high and still there were around 30 Tojos both times that were constantly diving on my Ligthnings? Strange things are going on.

Nothing was changed, perhaps itīs just my usual paranoia.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 10:16:17 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:20:48 PM   
che200


Posts: 871
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
In the last thread when you where ranting , shouting and being negative I had a small test run and found only 5-10 % because of high altitude sweeps. Unfortunately you where to focused writing that the Air model was wrong to take notice. Now that you are testing Castor do 100 turns to get the same percentages.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:22:08 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Oh yes, for those that after that long time from release think the combat report is anywhere correct on air losse, no it isnīt. Not that you would see too high losses, the losses are always far from what they really were. The 16 Lightning losses are correct (Iīm the Allied player). Not sure about the total Japanese losses but during (my) replay, 3 Tojos were shot down for 12 Lightnings shot down with 4 more crashing. Wonīt count the small number of Oscars, they did more or less nothing. If the 3 Tojos lost are correct, then the net result was 3 Tojos shot down for the loss of 16 Lightnings doing a sweep. The two best squadrons on the map, best pilots, best aircraft. Stratosphere sweep that wasnīt what it used to be, the stratsophere sweep was dived on by enemy fighters on Cap that canīt even go that high.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 3
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:23:33 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

In the last thread when you where ranting , shouting and being negative I had a small test run and found only 5-10 % because of high altitude sweeps. Unfortunately you where to focused writing that the Air model was wrong to take notice. Now that you are testing Castor do 100 turns to get the same percentages.



Ah, 6 months PBEM and approximately 400 turns vs AI before the patch werenīt enough? Iīm not playing the AI because itīs fun. And I definetely took notice, couldnīt duplicate it though. Same as what seemed to be true for other people doing the same stratosphere sweeps all the time. Why did they?

Oh, and 2 months PBEM and 200 AI turns after the patch not to forget.

And where did the change in official oppinion suddenly come from? Sure not to satisfy the people complaining about it.

Iīm sure you also will have an explanation about what Iīve written above and why (in my version only post patch) fighters that canīt reach other fighters still dive on them? My Warhawks that canīt go higher than 29.000ft NEVER EVER IN A SINGLE TURN were diving on the enemy at the beginning of an engagement if the enemy came in higher. Never. Now they do. It must prove that Iīve got some serious problem I guess.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 10:27:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to che200)
Post #: 4
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:27:57 PM   
che200


Posts: 871
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
Air Model is wrong part 2


Another 20 pages of ranting arguments without proof.


Lets go !

< Message edited by che200 -- 3/23/2010 10:28:16 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:28:19 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Air Model is wrong part 2


Lets restart again then enjoy it this time i am out of it.




thank you

_____________________________


(in reply to che200)
Post #: 6
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:32:12 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
these are the latest changes, I canīt figure out what is going on in my games. Again, perhaps Iīm just dreaming a dream. Even if che takes it personal already again, this is not an intention to get in a fight with someone again. Iīm trying to figure out what Iīm experiencing. Is it all relating to experience that suddenly effected both my PBEM and the AI test game? In both games at the same time?

V1.01.02a – February 28, 2010

• Third Official Update – This release is comprehensive, thus updating all previous versions to v1.01.02a.

• Code Changes


1. Fixed - Only show army units of the current player; in base hex it was possible to get the units from the owner of the base to show.
2. Fixed - Cross-assignment of land units grabbing air/sea leaders.
3. Fixed - Jumbled line on Industry Management Screen when sorting.
4. Fixed - City attack not working when using 'Commander Discretion'.
5. Correction - Allow reforming groups to use the HQ nationality if normal group national bases are not available.
6. Correction - Wrong location variable used in checking for Soviet airgroups, causing random carrier groups to appear Soviet for missions
7. Corrected inconsistency in low-level altitude determination.
8. Fixed - Don't show 'manage repairs' if no ships can be repaired. Otherwise the repair screen can be shown with a phantom ship.
9. Gameplay Change: Changed Allow Seaplane tenders with organic air groups to fly day patrols even if disbanded in a port 1-3. The port restriction is not in affect for the AI.
10. Changed - Suppress 'Done' on change of command screen until change is choosen – caused Political Points leak.
11. Changed - When PGM is used, it will be reported as "missile". The actual name of the device will appear on the combat report under the plane's weapons.
12. Fixed - When planes aborted missions, the mines and missiles did not get returned to the pool as 'unexpended'.
13. Adjust repair and conversion time when a ship is concurrently undergoing both Temp AP conversion and regular Upgrade/Conversion.
14. Corrected TF selection display on TF screen when in "in this hex" mode.
15. Suppress Upgrade Yes/No option when repair controls are expanded on Ship Screen to prevent overwrite.
16. Corrected distance calculation for TFs that arrive at off map bases and then return to onmap bases.
17. Corrected mis-spelling "Withdrawalls".
18. Prevented improper destination/follow setting for off map TF from teleporting the TF onto the map.
19. Prevent overflow in capacity calculations during TF Load Allocation, add cross load capacity shortfall and load safety factor messages.
20. Gameplay Change: Torpedo accuracy reduced a bit in general and a bit more against escorts.
21. Gameplay Change: ASW bombing experience effects altered to increase effects of ASW aircraft over time.
22. Major Interface Improvement: Added wide-screen, high resolution support.
23. Fix for AI not repairing captured industry.
24. Fixed TOE not upgrading devices which was causing units not to get replacements due to mismatch.
25. Fixed units in strat mode not waiting for packing up when following.
26. Fixed reducing TOE delay when delay is invalid (9999).
27. Fixed convoy units with invalid delay.
28. Fixed units not able to get replacements when device does not match TOE.
29. Made add supply button literal based, the unit will try to get only the amount listed.
30. Fixed partisan check, some units not being counted at base due to faulty 'on ship' check.
31. Gameplay Change: Changed Fast transports were using a different 'coast hex' check to every other instance. This stopped places surrounded by water hexsides from showing.
32. Fixed issues affecting fast transport pickups.
33. Tweaked Ship bombardment affecting port base.
34. Fixed - Don't allow transport ships to be removed from TF in the "Verify Load" if only one ship or not in a friendly base. Detaching ship in this case causes it to disappear from game.
35. Changed - Suppress some of the 'leader reassigned' messages.
36. Fixed - Variable reinforcement was incorrectly setting leader delay if the delay changed to before game started.
37. Fixed - Changed blanks in Air Unit Organization to use 'unknown' so sorting doesn't mangle lines in list.
38. Fixed - Choose TF leader screen was displaying some details on map rather than in text box.
39. Changed - Clear 'followed by' data from TF being dropped - TF following a removed TF attaches itself to the new TF# if used in same turn.
40. Fixed - Change of ship (prev/next) in the ship lists is not setting global original repair values for that ship.
41. Gameplay Change: Add PB to list of ships eligible for Auto Convoy.
42. Fixed issue to ensure Jeep carriers don't count towards a/c operational in TF.
43. Improved AI use of CVE.
44. Fixed Loop in viewing TF list.
45. Fixed issue causing wrong nationality of TF leader.
46. Fixed issues where CV sunk in same phase as planes land, they might not divert.
47. Tweaked AI replenishment TFs to stop them from switching back and forth between different TFs.
48. Interface Improvement: Added a mouse over on aircraft upgrades giving clues as to why upgrade in not possible.
49. Interface Improvement; Added a P next to the withdraw data (Withdraw by dd/mm/yy *P) on the Group screen. This indicates a most likely permament lost of the group when withdrawn.
50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless
1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn.
51. Rationalized supply draw rules.
52. Reset movement direction and miles if enemy in the way.
53. Put in tracking for all bases, a bit is set to indicate which industry slot failed to produce due to lack of some industry required material.
54. Replaced Supply Required column with Failed in Industry Management screen as there are no supply requirements for industry.
55. Put in Stop and Start industry repairs and reset add supply to zero in base list screen.
56. Fixed land unit recombine from editor - not using upgraded devices.
57. Fixed Issue with ship weapon repairs.
58. Placed cap on pilot training cycles so strange experience levels are suppressed

The following items were also included in the three hot fixes for patch 02
59. Resolved supply/fuel/resource/oil overflow issues causing loss of same.

60. Fixed issue that was preventing some bases from being resupplied.

61. Gameplay Change: Added terrain and fort effects against artillery attacks.

62. Gameplay Change: Artillery when used offensively use 2x amount of supplies.

63. Fixed save not reading properly issue.

64. Fixed overflow issue with air skills going backwards .

65. Fixed some display issues caused by Transfer Ships.

66. Fixed CTD issue with Clouds.

67. Fixed issue displaying LCUs at enemy base.

68. Fixed issue with groups that are on withdrawn ships.

69. Adjust ASW/Escort/Submarine attack issue.

70. Fixed group totals were not correct always during Air Phase.

71. Fixed overflow that was stopping new ships in TF from a Base screen.

72. Fixed ASW combat to stop multiple popouts from opening which could cause CTD when drawing map.

73. Changed cloud drawing to eliminate cases where it could be trying to draw invalid locations.

74. Fixed Surface TF wants to fight.

75. Fixed Task Force Loading/Unload Check.

76. Fixed "Sunk by".

77. Allow para-troops to drop on damaged enemy bases.

78. Fixed Group withdraw check where group does not return but still had a withdraw date; could allow 'gaining' of PPs.

79. Fixed Returning groups on delayed ships not correctly account for.

80. Fixed No bonus PPs if withdrawing on the actual withdraw date.

81. Fixed patrol levels when complement less than 10.

82. Fix aerial mining missions not working.

83. Fixed issue causing ships to carry wrong land unit.

84. Fixed AVD AVP Problem.

85. Fixed Industry Management Screen - was allowing free expansion of industry.

86. Gameplay Change: Submarine reaction range toned down for human players and historical difficulty AI players.

87. Gameplay Change: LCU given fort and concealment protection based on terrain from air to ground bombs. Protection will reduce casualties a lot and disruption a bit.

88. Minor adjustment to upgrade land devices.

89. Gameplay Change: Changed disbands to must be in national home base and can not be permently restricted then disband is free (no vp cost), in all other situations it is not allowed.

90. Fixed bug wherein resources and oil were still being deleted/not produced above 999,999. There is no production cap for resources
however there is still a production cap for oil.

91. Interface Improvement: Added supply and fuel spoilage limit to base screen if there is a limit (af + port < 9).

92. Fixed bug in checking AI cbt TFs (CV,NGFS,SAG) for damage and or lack of a/c and if severe enough TF will RTB.

Additional Changes for Patch 03

93. Fix to withdrawals due to incomplete scenario data, for example convoys.

94. Splitting air groups will preserve the permanent withdraw status of the group.

95. Fixed Transport type TF to better handle a hex destination that does not permit amphibious operations.

96. Fixed Blank out map screen when game exits.

97. Corrected Exchange of leader when sub-groups created/combined.

98. Reporting Improvement: Dated reports go into an archive directory if command '-archive' is added to quick start shortcut.

99. Submarines will now fire a more appropriate number of torpedoes at various targets.

100.Protect combat summary from invalid casualty numbers.

101. Gameplay Change: ASW increased depth charge accuracy so that ports and bases are more dangerous for submarines.

102.Cleaned up detachments and parents on small map scenario.

103. Gameplay Change: Included seaplane tenders from a TF in same hex when checking for support.

104.Changes to improve Coastal Gunnery effects.


< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 10:33:17 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 7
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:37:12 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1167
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
Why do you publish this list?
In case you don't know: this list is part of the Release Notes which come with the patches.


_____________________________

WitP/AE Devs Fan Boy
1.7.11.23t beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 8
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:38:10 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Air Model is wrong part 2


Another 20 pages of ranting arguments without proof.


Lets go !



thought you would be out?

I can only tell you again, if everything is fine for you, Iīm happy for you. Iīm trying to figure out what is going on, didnīt know Iīm not allowed. No trolling, no name calling, but probably some people pissed off already. I could post a smiley without anything else and people would be pissed off I guess as this could be seen as offensive again. If you want to stay out, itīs your right to do so. If you want to stay in, itīs your right too. If we all keep name calling out I canīt see a reason why it shouldnīt work.

_____________________________


(in reply to che200)
Post #: 9
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:40:59 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Why do you publish this list?
In case you don't know: this list is part of the Release Notes which come with the patches.




sorry, didnīt know I shouldnīt. Reason is, I canīt figure out what is in there that matches what I see in my games. Perhaps itīs all just about die rolls which never happened before, I just donīt know whatīs going on.

To point it out again, wrong right, wrong wrong, right right, totally right, whatever. Just one example above, like it or not, agree with it or not. Itīs just one example I took out of my PBEM as it happened this turn. The result is just secondary, itīs the change of what is going on in my games that makes me wonder and thatīs the reason for my thread.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 10:42:43 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 10
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 10:53:28 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1167
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
I feel you are not pursuing a clever strategy to bring your point across.
The first post in this thread I read as a mixture of accusitions and some points you seem to be not happy with about the game, and a lot of emotions on your side.
This probably does not motivate the devs very much to extract what you are really trying to say about the game.
Please remember: the devs are not Matrix employed, neither are they paid. They are volunteers trying to make a good game even better. Thus they deserve our respect and support.
Your posts are missing both as I read them.
My personal view of course.

PS: Pity you can't assume a different approach. The points you're addressing are probably well worth to be examined.


< Message edited by Rainer -- 3/23/2010 11:00:40 PM >


_____________________________

WitP/AE Devs Fan Boy
1.7.11.23t beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 11
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 11:02:15 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I feel you are not pursuing a clever strategy to bring your point across.
The first post in this thread I read as a mixture of accusitions and some points you seem to be not happy with about the game, and a lot of emotions on your side.
This probably does not motivate the devs very much to extract what you are really trying to say about the game.
Remember: the devs are not Matrix employed, neither are they paid. They are volunteers trying to make a good game even better. Thus they deserve our respect and support.
Your posts are missing both as I read them.
My personal view of course.

PS: Pity you can't assume a different approach. The points you're addressing are probably well worth to be examined.





hmm. I tried to do it as civilized as possible, no name calling, as less sarcasm as possible. If I take out the Sputnik and the Space Shuttle would it be fine then? What Iīve written about WITP is for sure true, seen in years of playing, confirmed by officials dozens of times. Example: altitude doesnīt matter in air combat in WITP.

Isnīt it true that first we were told that everything is fine, people like me (or perhaps just me) pissed off others and vice versa, then suddenly it was not fine anymore and there was an exploit. Pooof! After all those weeks of bad mood it was like a knock right in my face as I just couldnīt believe it. This is no offense and saying that there was a IMO 180 degree turn about the statement on the stratosphere sweeps (or call it high altitude or max altitude sweep if stratosphere sweep is also seen as unappropriate). And then I seem to have it totally different out of a sudden. At least I think it is and I donīt have an explanation for it.

Again, the above example is just an example, like it or not, I just canīt figure out why now I get fighters diving on other fighters if the diving fighters canīt even go that high? This was the same pooof for me like saying that we were suddenly exploiting the engine with those sweeps.

If you read AARs of "famous" people on the board you will note that MANY of them are wondering about a lot of things they either not seem to understand how it works or it doesnīt work as they would expect it. Coordination and high alt sweeps are two of those things. LCUs not being supplied in a base but one hex outside is another one. Night attacks? Those things can be read in a lot of PBEM AARs and also implemented hrs on those issues. The purpose isnīt to piss off "officials" or the guys who think everything is fine, or just this is fine. Iīm experiencing a sudden change in my game and I canīt figure out why as thereīs nothing in the patch notes and if thereīs nothing in the patch notes then I assume nothing was changed?

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 11:07:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 12
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/23/2010 11:24:37 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2716
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Well Castor refers planes that go higher than they can. That is a precise information.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 13
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 12:09:37 AM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1167
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
Looks like this time it is me being unable to bring the point across

Let me try again: if you want people do what you want them to do you better make sure those people are motivated to listen. That's all.

_____________________________

WitP/AE Devs Fan Boy
1.7.11.23t beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 14
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 12:36:58 AM   
dbfw190

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
"we both kept flying as high as possible."
thats the problem there, you think that by comming in at the highest altitude equals instant win.

if you didnt believe the air war in the Pacific took place at 40k, then why do you keep sending planes to that altitude?

_____________________________

The three most common expressions (or famous last words) in aviation are: "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh S--t!!!!"

(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 15
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 12:59:42 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3418
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
We get WitP and most are happy and have a GREAT time playing, some rather expend their energy trying to act smart and point out some problems, again most are having FUN.
You always will have a portion of society that expends alot of energy trying to derail and cause problems because they hate their lives.
It's good that most of us enjoy ourselves and this great game.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to dbfw190)
Post #: 16
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 2:37:32 AM   
Yakface

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"we both kept flying as high as possible."
thats the problem there, you think that by comming in at the highest altitude equals instant win.

if you didnt believe the air war in the Pacific took place at 40k, then why do you keep sending planes to that altitude?


Hi dbfw - I am guessing Castor has reached the point where all sweeps are at maximum altitude for the same reason it has happened in my game. That is, it seems that very little matters in air combat except who starts tha battle higher. If you start higher then you dive on your opponent, if he starts higher then he dives on you.

That being the case, there is a few turns at the beginning of the game where one side leapfrogs the other then it settles with everybody being at their ceiling. I makes for a very one dimensional air combat strategy. In my game neither of us want fighting to be at 40,000 feet, but if height is all that matters then there is no real alternative.

(in reply to dbfw190)
Post #: 17
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 3:55:09 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 1951
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I am just a player obviously, but it is very very clear to me and my opponent that to run lower cap and lower sweeps are suicide unless you are damn lucky in any particular A2A engagement. I really enjoy this game more than any other of the genre. This is THE game for me, and I have played a hundred or more WWII games of all types. My hat is off to the entire team, becasue you all did and are doing a spectacular job.

This does not change the fact that High cap is MONDO in my PBEM game scenario 1 - end of story. My personal view is that altitude is too important and the effects should be lessened. It will make the game that much better in my view.

Rest assured, I wont stop playing the game if it is not changed. I see the glass as 90% full.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Yakface)
Post #: 18
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 4:42:04 AM   
dbfw190

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
Saying altitude is the only thing that matters is like telling the dev's they've wasted their time adding everything else in the A2A model. I've never seen the dev's say alt. is the only thing that matters.
Altitude is not the only thing that matters... if that were infact the case, then my Zero's flying at 15k would have no losses at all even though my opponent is flying mostly at 10k. obviously isnt the case.
if someone flies sweeps at max alt. then presumably they fly all a/c and all missions at max alt. and if so not really a worthy pbem opponent. then again if alt is the only thing that matters then you probably wouldnt spend time training your pilots, which would infact make an easier opponent.

If all people want to do is not take any losses, why not play tic-tac- toe against themselves?

Lower CAP is suicide?? taking a handful of losses is not suicide.

_____________________________

The three most common expressions (or famous last words) in aviation are: "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh S--t!!!!"

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 19
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 4:43:06 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9775
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Nothing was changed, perhaps itīs just my usual paranoia.



It is Castor...you haven't realized yet that the devs are out to insure that you and only you get unfortunate results...

And now for the abstraction...zen response... that you don't want to hear...

So the P-38's are set at 39,000 feet...they spot the Tojos at 20,000 feet and commence diving on them ...guess what ....they are now no longer at 38,500 feet and get dived on by the other Japanese CAP that is at 38,500 feet. Or do you think the P-38s stay at 39,000 in perpetuity?

....its a game. Why don't you try and relax and enjoy it...and figure out its nuances...



quote:

ORIGINAL : dbfw190
Lower CAP is suicide?? taking a handful of losses is not suicide.


Seems in Castor's example someone figured out how to counter the stratospheric sweep....with a lower CAP...



< Message edited by treespider -- 3/24/2010 4:49:12 AM >


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 20
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 4:48:59 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2827
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

One more interesting thing about WITP was that altitude didnīt matter in air combat

Not true, one rule for WITP was to always have your escorts 1-3K higher than bombers, the rule in AE is to keep escorts the same altitude as the bombers.

Your test?

1. Playing against the AI, what level, easy, normal, etc.
2. Air group levels of experience, fatigue, leader ratings, etc. (experience is still king!)
3. Weather, I don't think weather was as big a deal in WITP!
4. Fog of war, what you read happened, may have or not gone down as described or even listed in the intel report!
According to the reports in my game I've sunk the same ship three times now!

Unless you setup a scenario with the editor with everything equal, play it from both sides, your results don't mean much, we've all seen some strange things happen (bad/odd random numbers)!

Just like in real war, things don't always happen like they should.



(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 21
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 5:14:43 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Hi castor troy!

The altitude issue does seem rather daunting; but hope that you will wait and trust that the AE Team is aware of the problem and will eventually get a fix in.

Sincerely hope you can do a workaround or just stick with it till fixed.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 22
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 5:49:05 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3251
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I guess there are two ways of looking at this.

First, Castor Troy is correct in pointing out that some of the game mechanics are out of whack compared to the RL model. While the point could be made that AE is a game and not a simulation, the counterpoint could be made that it is a game based/modeled after RL experience. This is not the Xargons vs the Venutians, i.e a fantasy game based on what the devs decided should be the paramaters of the game. This is a game built around the RL War in the Pacific. Ergo, the game is best when it models the RL experience as closely as possible. So if some one or many people see somthing awry, there should be no offense taken at it being pointed out. If something can be done about the problem within the confines of the current game engine, then I think it is fair to ask if can be addressed. Of course, we also know that many things are built in and therefore cannot be changed. Sometimes you just have to accept things as they are.

That said, there are many places where WiTP and WiTP-AE fail miserably at modeling the RL war. Air base attack whether via bombers or BOMB TF's is very far off the RL experience. Airbases in WWII were never bombed into oblivion to the point of becoming unusable. What happened was that airframes were destroyed on the ground. Air bases never really were destroyed but instead became untenable as the enemy's attacks destroyed and damage the aircraft and to a lesser extent maintainence facilities and supplies. This does not matter if we are talking Clark Field in 1941 or Rabaul in 1943. Rabaul was not rendered useless by pounding the runways to dust with massive B-24 raids droppping large bombs it was instead rendered untenable by B-25/B-26/A-20/Beuafighter raids using parafrags, WP, and MG's to destroy any airframe caught on the ground. Even the famous "Night of the Battleship" at Guadalcanal really didn't tear up the runway as much as it destroyed/damaged most of the a/c and more importantly the fuel dumps. Point being that this is just one example among many where "The Game" misses RL. But ............................ because of the way the game is designed, good players have adapted their play styles to mirror what the game gives them. So every good AFB uses 4E's to pound AB's to dust (hoping to achieve that magic 99% damaged intel from the Recon a/c). Realistic? Heck no!!!!! But it is how the game is played. So, now we have another unrealistic issue. While we would like the game to better mirror the RL model, if it can't then it is up to good players to adapt.

So there you have it. I played both sides of the coin in one post. I applaud all who find problems in the game whether it be database issues or game engine issues. I know that the dev team is dedicated to making the game better. They have done such a great job so far. I know it is my hope and that of many others that AE will continue to evolve to slowly grow closer to the RL model. If you wait until AE is perfect, you might as well give up now because it will never be perfect.

Last point: from the early days of WiTP, it was recognized that the game engine would not/could not address some balance issues that were way out of whack. This led to two things. First was the developement of a pretty standard set of HR's (things like no 4E on Nav Attack below 15k). The second is that it led to modding. Just looking at the AAR's in the WiTP Forum, it would seem there were as many or more games that were mods in the final year or two of WiTP (meaning pre-AE) as there were stock. It was probably unrealistic to expect AE to fix every issue in WiTP. It seems that fixing some issues has only created new issues. So do what we did with WiTP: use HR's and keep modding. That along with continued patches will hopefully provide an enjoyable gaming experience for the vast majority of players (not all - I beleive Abe Lincoln had something to say about that).

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 23
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 7:30:31 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2716
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Well the issues that can't work with house rules should have priority.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 24
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 7:44:51 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4379
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
......
In AE - until the lates patch - I couldnīt imagine fighters "diving" on other fighters that actuall flew higher than the diving fighters even can go.
Well, since the latest patch, they obviously can.
......
Even though the enemy canīt go even that high, my Lightnings get bounced now.
......


Or your opponent found out that there are quite good counters to the stratospheres sweeps if you have the
planes to work with. I wont give it away, maybe you find out yourself...

Also make sure youre not confusing "dive" with "bounce"...two different things as should be long obvious by now.
For me the air model works exactly as pre-patch but Iīm probably wrong or visiting the wrong conspiracy theorist websites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Seems in Castor's example someone figured out how to counter the stratospheric sweep....with a lower CAP...


Oops. someone beat me to it...


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Air base attack whether via bombers or BOMB TF's is very far off the RL experience. Airbases in WWII were never
bombed into oblivion to the point of becoming unusable. What happened was that airframes were destroyed on the
ground. Air bases never really were destroyed but instead became untenable as the enemy's attacks destroyed
and damage the aircraft and to a lesser extent maintainence facilities and supplies.


vettim89 interesting comments but if my shorttime memory doesnīt fail me CT proved you wrong preemtively in PzBs AAR. Its just the other
way around:

quote:


ORIGINAL: castor troy

...
and now the most unrealistical thing then: the damage done is repaired in no time. In real life it took one or two
succesful mission to wreck an airbase for a long time, yet in the game I can still repair it in no time, if there
are enough eng on hand. Just because you have 5000 engineers at a base doesnīt mean you would have all your hangers,
concrete runways, storage buildings, etc up running within one or two days again - everything brand new.


Want to fight it out?

Ok, jokes aside, as far as I can see it already works the way you describe. AFīs can be closed for 1-2 days max and what hurts most
is the ground losses when the opponent choses to continue. This is at least if you cannot move out damaged airframes
by land.

I think that CT has valid points from time to time, but those are mostly so well hidden between wrong assumptions or elaborate description
of pasttime events that you need a microscope and a pincette to extract them.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 25
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 8:22:42 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"we both kept flying as high as possible."
thats the problem there, you think that by comming in at the highest altitude equals instant win.

if you didnt believe the air war in the Pacific took place at 40k, then why do you keep sending planes to that altitude?


Hi dbfw - I am guessing Castor has reached the point where all sweeps are at maximum altitude for the same reason it has happened in my game. That is, it seems that very little matters in air combat except who starts tha battle higher. If you start higher then you dive on your opponent, if he starts higher then he dives on you.

That being the case, there is a few turns at the beginning of the game where one side leapfrogs the other then it settles with everybody being at their ceiling. I makes for a very one dimensional air combat strategy. In my game neither of us want fighting to be at 40,000 feet, but if height is all that matters then there is no real alternative.




Thatīs exactly what happened in my PBEM too, we were both trying to figure out what works best (werenīt we even told to do so?) and the result was the "everyone go up as high as you can". What I think about it doesnīt need any more comment.

But I DONīT see this anymore! And thatīs what strikes me because I canīt figure out why. Nothing was changed but now I see planes at 20.000ft getting the dive instantly at the beginning of an air engagement on planes that are flying at 39.000ft. And 39.000ft is a height the diving planes canīt even go, let alone even higher. This is the same as in WITP, but there the answer was altitude isnīt a factor in A2A, thatīs why this can happen.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yakface)
Post #: 26
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 8:27:21 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
 
Agree regarding the air fields a large raid could take it down to a size 2 or 3.

With regard to the air combat it looks more than fine.

Use a commander with lower aggression so  he doesnt engadge the lower CAP and you get your stratospheric sweep.  It looks from the report your guys went straight after them and your out numbered some of your planes will get bounced .  Being bounced is far less meaningfull in group situations.

It looks like he has a staggered height CAP your planes Dive on the 4 Oscars at 30K  one of which you kill ,  the Oscars dive your planes follow and at 20K a bunch of Tojos  come in while this is going on some more high level CAP comes in maybe from a dif air base  / or which was too far away or held in reserve  on the other side of the base at 38500 while your down at 20K .  These guys prob kill 2-3 of yours.

This may be a good strategy against high levels sweeps with aggresive commanders eg put a squadrons on different altitude and put a Chutai with 30% cap at max.  If he goes after the Chutai  bait they dive and lead him into the other squadrons with less of a dive / bounce bonus Other members of teh Chutai would take of and reassume maximum altitude. Would work very well vs P38s esp when you out number them.  Now a good and less aggressive sweep command could deal with this its uncertain how it works in the mechanics.  Prob just an aggr check and they go after the planes.




_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 27
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 8:34:05 AM   
briny_norman

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So the P-38's are set at 39,000 feet...they spot the Tojos at 20,000 feet and commence diving on them ...guess what ....they are now no longer at 38,500 feet and get dived on by the other Japanese CAP that is at 38,500 feet. Or do you think the P-38s stay at 39,000 in perpetuity?

....its a game. Why don't you try and relax and enjoy it...and figure out its nuances...

Seems in Castor's example someone figured out how to counter the stratospheric sweep....with a lower CAP...


Very interesting information...!
Would benefit the A2A model a whole lot if you could use this tactic to somewhat lessen the effect of the stratospheric sweep.
Will the AI attempt to use this tactic too?

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 28
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 8:38:46 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Nothing was changed, perhaps itīs just my usual paranoia.



It is Castor...you haven't realized yet that the devs are out to insure that you and only you get unfortunate results...

And now for the abstraction...zen response... that you don't want to hear...

So the P-38's are set at 39,000 feet...they spot the Tojos at 20,000 feet and commence diving on them ...guess what ....they are now no longer at 38,500 feet and get dived on by the other Japanese CAP that is at 38,500 feet. Or do you think the P-38s stay at 39,000 in perpetuity?

....its a game. Why don't you try and relax and enjoy it...and figure out its nuances...



quote:

ORIGINAL : dbfw190
Lower CAP is suicide?? taking a handful of losses is not suicide.


Seems in Castor's example someone figured out how to counter the stratospheric sweep....with a lower CAP...





you donīt understand me. And you also donīt seem to (want) to understand a lot of other people that are "complaining" about stratosphere sweeps. Not only I seem to be dumb, but all those other people too?

Treespider, forget the abstract thing for a moment, because with the "abstract" arguments I can make Command & Conquer the best WWII game ever. Again, I am NOW seeing someting I havenīt seen it before, before, at the beginning of an engagement I was 100% sure that the highest incoming ac would dive on the lower ones. Now something that will probably surprise you: I was ok with this! To an extent. Of course the highest fighters have to dive first to get into an engagement when the rest is lower and canīt even go that high. What wasnīt ok for me is that this dive was far too powerful or just didnīt end (eg Oscars doing Zoom and Boom?) especially if the height difference was 10-20.000ft. Not to talk about which paper fighters are diving down like comets, but hey, diving characteristics arenīt modelled and noone will ever be blamed just because you donīt have everything modelled when you have air, sea and land combat.

If itīs correct or if itīs wrong, everyone is up to decide himself. But again, for months everything was fine, then suddenly stratosphere sweeps were an exploit. A statement you should not miss as IMO this implies that stratosphere sweeps were not working as intended. Iīm not here to hit anyone or blame, Iīve said often enough that if Iīm told that the code restricts something, or the not available time to change it, or a bug then I will always be one that will say that itīs a pity but thatīs just how it is. The not factoring in of altitude in WITP air combat for example. It was "wrong" IMO, but the code wasnīt there, so be it. Now there is new code that led to stratosphere sweeps, not in all games, but itīs not just me that thought this would be not that good.

Out of a sudden though, in castor troyīs v2.1 this isnīt true for his PBEM nor for his AI game anymore. My combat replays now have physics upside down again, with the highest fighters at a height the enemy canīt go, yet the enemy is still diving on them. Something that did NOT happen a single time before. Repeat, at the BEGINNING of an air engagement.

_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 29
RE: Patch has not changed air model ? - 3/24/2010 8:47:37 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12184
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

One more interesting thing about WITP was that altitude didnīt matter in air combat

Not true, one rule for WITP was to always have your escorts 1-3K higher than bombers, the rule in AE is to keep escorts the same altitude as the bombers.

Your test?

1. Playing against the AI, what level, easy, normal, etc.
2. Air group levels of experience, fatigue, leader ratings, etc. (experience is still king!)
3. Weather, I don't think weather was as big a deal in WITP!
4. Fog of war, what you read happened, may have or not gone down as described or even listed in the intel report!
According to the reports in my game I've sunk the same ship three times now!

Unless you setup a scenario with the editor with everything equal, play it from both sides, your results don't mean much, we've all seen some strange things happen (bad/odd random numbers)!

Just like in real war, things don't always happen like they should.






pad, no idea what you are talking about. If you donīt believe me, ask one of the officials if altitude was factored in in fighter vs fighter combat in WITP.

and there wasnīt this rule in WITP to have your fighters at 1 - 3000 ft higher than your bombers, they flew AUTOMATICALLY 3000 ft above your bombers when escorting, no need to do any settings. Bombers set at 6.000, fighters set at 30.000, didnīt matter.

I must have no clue about WITP because I never used the editor with 100% equal settings to find out exactly how things work, because by playing it and watching the replay and itīs result wonīt give you any info. Heck, thanks, now I now why I have been beaten like the AI on very easy in PBEMs all the time. And then I made up wrong combat reports for my AARs.

I may be the most bitching, but Iīm obviously not the only one that found some things out. As noone seems to have realized yet, I can say it again. For what reason ever, the highest flying fighter is NOT diving at the beginning anymore 100% of the time. And this, for what reason ever, is not what Iīve seen before. That was what made me curious.

You wonīt believe me anyway, the statement of The Elf that stratosphere sweeps were an exploit was enough for me to calm down. Thatīs hard to believe, I know. Because that meant for me that at some point you should just discuss a hr for your PBEM, before you wouldnīt be supposed to, because everything was fine. But again, Iīve got no clue what is happening now.

_____________________________


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Patch has not changed air model ? Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.130