Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 1:16:53 PM   
tigercub


Posts: 1534
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: chiang mai ,thailand
Status: offline
The game is not perfect and never will be but its still better than any war game ever made so give it a rest...unless you can help bring the game forward.

Tigercub!

< Message edited by tigercub -- 8/31/2010 12:21:22 AM >


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 31
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 1:57:22 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
He clearly said the stratosweeps are an exploit and he suggested to use house rules.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 32
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 1:58:03 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Good. I hope others will follow your example.



sounds like the pope... in 1402

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 33
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 2:12:50 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
There are more factors though. Here an interesting example: everything happens the same day

LRCAP has altitude advantage. P40E intercept the formation. After one plane takes damage about 4 break off (low morale?). P40E dive in on Oscar in next sequence, then I see another "intercept" message in the POSTAIR phase. Combat and end
Morning Air attack on Imphal , at 60,40

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 31
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 21



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 12


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 4 damaged
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 17

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 10000 feet

CAP engaged:
23rd FG/74th FS with P-40E Warhawk (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
23rd FG/75th FS with P-40E Warhawk (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
23rd FG/76th FS with P-40E Warhawk (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

CAP has altitude advantage. These are fresh planes because one of my bomber groups bombed this hex without being intercepted. Look at how late the sweep is spotted. While the raid flies lower the the LRCAP the OSCARS get the dive on P40E and the P40E are massacred in the first phase. P40E only return fire in the last few sequences. If Oscars had 6 .50s none of the P40Es would have survived here. It seemed that the "recalled" planes also get shot at but not sure

Afternoon Air attack on Imphal , at 60,40

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 19



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 12


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 10000 feet

CAP engaged:
23rd FG/74th FS with P-40E Warhawk (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
23rd FG/75th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
23rd FG/76th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes


< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 8/28/2010 2:30:29 PM >


_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 34
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 3:13:51 PM   
mbatch729


Posts: 531
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
In answer to some of the inquiries, this was the first turn the group had flown. They had been on R & R at a behind the lines base for a while. Don't know what the defensive ratings of the pilots were.

If this had been an isolated event, I wouldn't have brought it up, but would have chalked it up to a bad day in the war. However, it has been happening consistenly over multiple bases. Regarding the post on picking where to defend, etc., with things as they are I can't defend ANY base. High altitude sweeps decimate the fighter groups protecting it, and then the bombers come in and bomb at will.

Will spend some time reading over the house rules I can find on it.

One note regarding my opponent. He's a great oppoonent and plays fairly. We've had games going since the early UV days. So in no way should my rant about the sweeps be taken as anything negative about him or his playing style.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 35
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 3:45:43 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
From what i've read there seems to be a few different HR regarding altitude. These are the ones i've seen.

1. No sweeps/CAP higher than at the best manuver band of the plane.
My short take, in regards what it measn to dive and that factor only.
Starts out with both sides generally maxed at the same altitude for both side.
Tojo/P-38(not that many p-38 to go around tho initially) alters that, but then as 43 goes by the US planes gets some advantange tho not fully. British planes genrally behind on the curve. Late war jap can come back and get advantage if certain planes are researched.

2 Same as above just using the 2nd best manuver band taking teh altitude up a notch compared to above.

3. A set max altitude for both sides through out teh war. 20, 25, 29, 30ish seems to be the used ones.
My short take, in regards what it measn to dive and that factor only.
That "eliminates" the dive tho not in totally in reality. CAPs will have to climb and some times doesnt reach the height so in some cases but much much less than with out HR u will see sides getting dive bonus. Generally the advantage when its there, is on the side of sweeps.

4. Same as above but altering the altitude by year. So starting at for exaple 15k then goes higher and higher as the years go by to allow the allied supercharged planes to use that advantage of higher altitudes.
Take same as above.

5. Same as above 2 but lets the CAP have a slight advantage of usually 1k to try and even out the times the dive bonus applies.

Hope it helps u research stuff, fell free to ask questions if stuff isnt clear

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2010 4:35:36 PM >

(in reply to mbatch729)
Post #: 36
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 6:30:20 PM   
mbatch729


Posts: 531
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
Walloc,

Thanks for the summaries on the HR's. I'll talk w/my opponent and see which one we think would be best.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 37
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 6:52:49 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2058
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
I believe the air model is fantastic as currently modelled. I'd like to see altitudes come down for historical purposes but realistically sweepers have the initiative and altitude advantage they should win most if not all of the battles. My only issue is with the heights air conflicts take place, I'd like to see the same modelling but everything dropped down to a combat ceiling.

Japanese bases with the weaker radar if any at all will be at a severe disadvantage because they may not know a raid is on top of them until it is much too late.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 8/28/2010 7:12:39 PM >


_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to mbatch729)
Post #: 38
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 7:05:48 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7044
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Occasionly, a brushfire will break out. I am guessing one might start up now.    



Hee...hee, I pretty much called this one right.

BTW, I am thinking it is time to start a new thread on this subject.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 39
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 7:08:19 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I just want to point out that it first long was said by the responsible person everything is fine until we reached the point that the air team lead actually was admitting it would be kind of an exploit.



Castor,

I don't remember Elf saying it was an exploit. There are lots of threads and lots of posts so maybe I missed it. I remember him saying there were ways to counter it to lessen its effects. That and it was part of the deal - some planes are better at higher altitudes and that altitude really matters.

Early on IJ has better high altitude planes, later the Allies do. Historically sweeps went in high to try and dive on CAP. My first sweep went in at 25,000ft and was higher than CAP (forget their altitude). My second sweep at 25,000 but CAP was at 30,000. My third at 35,000... until CAP was flying at ~35,000 (max I think) and my sweeps were going in at 37,000 or 38,000 (whatever was max for them).

Finally we settled on a HR of 25,000 max (at first it was 30,000 but some significant models of my planes can't do that). This reduces the altitude issues, but why bother? Early on IJ had the advantage, later the Allies did, so why neuter that? I favor it just being part of the game and using all the tools to try and work through it.


It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting.

I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 40
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 8:31:23 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting.

I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.


Yes, but that "hot pilot" is dealing in reality based upon experience, not theory. Nothing against your father-in-law but test pilots didn't necessarily make the best fighter pilots. They just happened to have superb flying skills which weren't always based on the tactics or external situational awareness needed to be effective in air-air combat.

This debate is about the effectiveness of high altitude sweeps once the target has been aquired so target acquisition has already taken place. And I do agree that the greater the difference in altitude, the longer it takes for interception to take place thereby giving the defender a greater chance to prepare and evade. Plus an aircraft approaching terminal dive velocity is not able to maneuver as well as an aircraft at slower speeds.

In my game, Brad occasionally conducts a high altitude sweep with his Hurris and P-40s. Initially, I attempted to match his altitude as best I could but was taking losses on the order of 2 or 3:1. I changed my CAP altitude to one that gives me the best MVR rating advantage over his aircraft and losses have dropped to roughly 1:1. The jury is still out on this though as he doesn't routinely sweep. He still gets the benefit of the bounce but once the bounce is over, my higher MVR rating increases my ability to knock down some of his aircraft plus my aircraft remain in a better position to intercept any bombers.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 41
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 9:13:38 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

Wow Harry, that's totally cool! What was his name, and when was he on payroll?

My little Wisconsin LLC has done some interesting subcontract work for Bell-Boeing and Boeing-Sikorsky in the last couple years - sensors, not airplanes - but we have to meet and greet with the fat-cats. Corporate dinner small-talk is so boring and I would love to mention to Sorrentino or Marsh - 'I know someone who's father was one of your test pilots back in (whenever)' - way more fun than the usual.

What planes did he fly? Which fields did he fly out of? Gosh, this is nice to know.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 42
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 9:16:51 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting.

I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.


Yes, but that "hot pilot" is dealing in reality based upon experience, not theory. Nothing against your father-in-law but test pilots didn't necessarily make the best fighter pilots. They just happened to have superb flying skills which weren't always based on the tactics or external situational awareness needed to be effective in air-air combat.

This debate is about the effectiveness of high altitude sweeps once the target has been aquired so target acquisition has already taken place. And I do agree that the greater the difference in altitude, the longer it takes for interception to take place thereby giving the defender a greater chance to prepare and evade. Plus an aircraft approaching terminal dive velocity is not able to maneuver as well as an aircraft at slower speeds.

In my game, Brad occasionally conducts a high altitude sweep with his Hurris and P-40s. Initially, I attempted to match his altitude as best I could but was taking losses on the order of 2 or 3:1. I changed my CAP altitude to one that gives me the best MVR rating advantage over his aircraft and losses have dropped to roughly 1:1. The jury is still out on this though as he doesn't routinely sweep. He still gets the benefit of the bounce but once the bounce is over, my higher MVR rating increases my ability to knock down some of his aircraft plus my aircraft remain in a better position to intercept any bombers.

Chez


In other words, take advantage of the details!

Bob was a fine aeronautical engineer and later did heat shield design for NASA. He was very quiet and very good. Climbed mountains as a hobby. His retirement gift was a mounted chunk of the Apollo 13 heat shield.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 43
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 9:23:36 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

Wow Harry, that's totally cool! What was his name, and when was he on payroll?

My little Wisconsin LLC has done some interesting subcontract work for Bell-Boeing and Boeing-Sikorsky in the last couple years - sensors, not airplanes - but we have to meet and greet with the fat-cats. Corporate dinner small-talk is so boring and I would love to mention to Sorrentino or Marsh - 'I know someone who's father was one of your test pilots back in (whenever)' - way more fun than the usual.

What planes did he fly? Which fields did he fly out of? Gosh, this is nice to know.


Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 44
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 9:44:16 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots.

Excellent !! Must have been step-father, yes? I'm taking a trip back east in 2 weeks for family reasons - will be seeing the "influential designer" on the way out. Coming back, will be doing the great circle through DC, St Louis, Colorado Springs, and Mojave. Probably won't see Sorrentino, but will see D'Arcy Marsh for sure. I'll be sure and mention it.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 45
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 10:05:59 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots.

Excellent !! Must have been step-father, yes? I'm taking a trip back east in 2 weeks for family reasons - will be seeing the "influential designer" on the way out. Coming back, will be doing the great circle through DC, St Louis, Colorado Springs, and Mojave. Probably won't see Sorrentino, but will see D'Arcy Marsh for sure. I'll be sure and mention it.


Diane's dad--my father-in-law. My dad was an EOD tech in the ETO. Fought in the lines at Mortain and Bastogne, but usually worked as a gunsmith when he wasn't dealing with unexploded ordnance.

The sort of thing Bob did.


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 46
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/29/2010 12:08:59 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Diane's dad--my father-in-law. My dad was an EOD tech in the ETO. Fought in the lines at Mortain and Bastogne, but usually worked as a gunsmith when he wasn't dealing with unexploded ordnance.

Excellentamundo !! I'll have my secretary collect all this stuff and shoot it out to D'Arcy's secretary. It will give us something to talk about beyond that usual corporate small talk and nonsense. Thanks.

(e) Sorry for the hijack, folks. Back to the regularly scheduled rant. (/e)

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/29/2010 1:01:39 AM >


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 47
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 11:32:16 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9065
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat.
Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one.

The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat.

If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 48
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 1:09:17 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.


I agree but the trick is to obtain the data...

Andrew

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 49
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 5:12:53 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2653
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
The AI has sent the entire IJA air force to Burma in an attempt to slow down my advance back down the peninsula.  I'm seeing 20-30 bombers escorted by as many as 150 Oscars over Akyab and Chittagong, just daring my fighters to come up and play.  My squadrons of Hurricanes have experienced pilots but against those odds they just don't have a chance.  Bombing the bases around Mandalay doesn't work; there's 30+ Oscars flying CAP over all of them and after a few days my medium/heavy bomber squadrons are worn down to nothing.  I've got ground units advancing to Mandalay but the AI has stuffed those bases full of dug in troops and mine are on a long logistic train.


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 50
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 6:08:56 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5966
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat.
Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one.

The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat.

If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.



Hi,

Could you check that planes flying high would actually gain meaningful amount of extra fatigue? It doesn't seem to be very large amount, but I haven't really tested it. It might be worth adjusting the fatigue amounts up, since really high-flying was apparently really stressing for pilot in single-engined fighters.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 51
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 6:46:24 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.


I agree but the trick is to obtain the data...

Andrew


500 ft/minute climb is usually used as the combat ceiling. Service ceiling is 100 ft/minute climb. You derive this from the engine chart. Rate of climb is proportional to power available once you have enough lift to stay airborne. I did the necessary computations once for a collection of aircraft including the F4F3, F4F4, F4U1, and F6F3, but my analysis notebook is no longer available to me. For a quick approximation, use the service ceiling to get the power available at that altitude and then back down in altitude until the increase in engine power gives you five times the power available.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 52
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 7:37:53 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5966
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
One could probably get some ROC vs Alt comparisons from IL-2 Sturmovik help program called IL2 Wingman. But of course not all may accept the stats from that simulator. 

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 53
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 8:24:41 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14513
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat.
Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one.

The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat.

If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.



Hi,

Could you check that planes flying high would actually gain meaningful amount of extra fatigue? It doesn't seem to be very large amount, but I haven't really tested it. It might be worth adjusting the fatigue amounts up, since really high-flying was apparently really stressing for pilot in single-engined fighters.


I think he's saying that he did just check the code...

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 54
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 9:36:31 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2037
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
Extract of Commander USS Yorktown official AAR for Battle of Midway. CAP section summary.

"It is believed that the Combat Air Patrol should be placed at such an altitude that the pilots are not required to use oxygen while on patrol. It is felt that 10,000 feet is a satisfactory altitude, for from there they can be vectored out satisfactorily to intercept either low or high flying bogies. It has the additional advantage of being less tiring on the pilot, as he is more comfortable at a lower altitude and is not inconvenienced by having to wear an oxygen mask. In addition, too much time is wasted in having a CAP come down from 18,000 feet by the controlling fighter director. A low flying bogey was picked up and part of the CAP had to be brought down to investigate. By the time they got down the bogey had disappeared off the screen. The Yorktown maintained her CAP at 10,000 feet and successfully intercepted all bogies except for the one mentioned above."



_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 55
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 9:43:53 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14513
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Extract of Commander USS Yorktown official AAR for Battle of Midway. CAP section summary.

"It is believed that the Combat Air Patrol should be placed at such an altitude that the pilots are not required to use oxygen while on patrol. It is felt that 10,000 feet is a satisfactory altitude, for from there they can be vectored out satisfactorily to intercept either low or high flying bogies. It has the additional advantage of being less tiring on the pilot, as he is more comfortable at a lower altitude and is not inconvenienced by having to wear an oxygen mask. In addition, too much time is wasted in having a CAP come down from 18,000 feet by the controlling fighter director. A low flying bogey was picked up and part of the CAP had to be brought down to investigate. By the time they got down the bogey had disappeared off the screen. The Yorktown maintained her CAP at 10,000 feet and successfully intercepted all bogies except for the one mentioned above."


It would be great if this type of time-consequence of altitude (and the need to change altitude) is accounted for by the code, including for sweepers coming in (not just for CAP). I don't know if it is currently in the code or not, but if it is that really answers many of the issues that people have raised.

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 56
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 11:38:15 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16075
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: online
Even if that level of detail is taken into account by the code, to the player it is all abstracted.  If you really want to see the air battle unfold like that, you need to look at a tactical game, instead of a Grand Strategic one.  The detail in AE is unbelievable, but it can't be that detailed and still encompass the entire Pacific.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 57
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/30/2010 11:45:11 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14513
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 58
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/31/2010 12:22:31 AM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those.


It's not going to help with the complaints if the complainers still think its broken.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 59
RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/31/2010 1:08:56 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14513
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those.


It's not going to help with the complaints if the complainers still think its broken.







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by witpqs -- 8/31/2010 1:09:02 AM >

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.127