Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: 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 War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: another disaster

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: another disaster Page: <<   < prev  216 217 [218] 219 220   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:19:39 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3912
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.


1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)



Maybe I am missing something, but where do you pull the numbers from for the raid on Hakodate? I count 1200+ fighters available total against the first raid,
not 2900.

Considering the usual 1/3rd rule this means maybe 400+ available to engage the first pack.
For this the combat report shows astonishing 250+ kills, which is really good.

I agree with you that the relation between escorts and bombers is off (this is something which could be looked into), but not the total number of planes killed.


You know that we have been friends around the boards a long time but now must say that you are missing the point here.

You ram enough of whatever obsolete fighters you have as an escorts.. add tons of bombers and you can nuke bomb any airfield or as it seems to stand carrier fleet.

...to say that is fine.. than well definately not. Add the ineffective allied AA fire and you have these things happening again.. and again... and again. Rince and repeat...

Well.. hats of to you defending the the air model but to be honest it seems more flawed than in the original witp.

Oops.. yes.. it actually is more flawed

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6511
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:26:39 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
I am rather sure the problem is somewhere between everything is fine and zomg da game is broken.

_____________________________



(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 6512
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:32:54 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
aztez, I don´t think voicing a different opinion should be related to friendship in any way, so I´m fine with that.

I even agree that there is a problem. But not the way most people seem to interprete it, which does neccesarily not suggest I am
right, I just see it different.

A homogenous raid should get through. A single airfield should be impossible to defend against a large attack no matter what.
This was the essence of WWII. If you want to minimize losses, first concolidate, then achieve air superiority, then attack.

We are witnessing a pitched battle here with neither side holding superiority in a highly concentrated area.

On GJs side there are exactly 3 bases hosting a couple of thousand of planes. This is an extremely vulnerable position I´d
try to avoid without having the upper hand. This was a chosen approach. He also choses his tempo of operations, which is,
IMHO about 10 levels too high for the relative force balance.

The prerequisite for this situation is the belief that you should be able to stop massive counterstrikes without achiving strategic air superiority
first, which I don´t.

This is no critizism, its just my opinion.



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 6513
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:40:28 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Is it possible to rebalace the attack priorities of CAP when choosing targets, or the way escorts defend the strike?

If theres a slight shift toward bomber attack it might change in a good direction.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 6514
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:24:19 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17861
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.


But there's no overstacking with 9 and 10 level AFs

Well, that may read so in the manual, but how many other aspects of the *real game* air war are unreflected in the manual or incorrectly advertised in the manual?

It looks like overstacking, acts like overstacking, smells like overstacking. I'd ask a very pointed question of the devs to see if there's been a change in the game from what is advertised in the written manual.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6515
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:24:23 PM   
princep01

 

Posts: 934
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Of course, these late war monster aerial battles were never playtested. Neither was the extreme power of the IJN E class escorts. If I understand it, it has to do with the number of attacks these escorts get ...and is totally unrealistic. Greyjoy and only a very few others have ever gotten this deeply into a Scenario 2 game and few enough on a Scenario 1 game. I am sure the developers are at least vaguely aware of the problems. Hopefully Greyjoy/Rader's experience gives them the data to smooth out these wrinkles. They seem to be quite significant problems.

Ser Greyjoy, watch your AF stacking and put your CAP on a higher %. I am sort of an all or nothing type, so my CAP is usually at 100% or resting.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6516
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:25:54 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17861
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
And, if there are not penalties then there should be in future patches. The notion of 3,000 planes at one airfield is absurd.


+1.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6517
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:38:03 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

aztez, I don´t think voicing a different opinion should be related to friendship in any way, so I´m fine with that.

I even agree that there is a problem. But not the way most people seem to interprete it, which does neccesarily not suggest I am
right, I just see it different.

A homogenous raid should get through. A single airfield should be impossible to defend against a large attack no matter what.
This was the essence of WWII. If you want to minimize losses, first concolidate, then achieve air superiority, then attack.

We are witnessing a pitched battle here with neither side holding superiority in a highly concentrated area.

On GJs side there are exactly 3 bases hosting a couple of thousand of planes. This is an extremely vulnerable position I´d
try to avoid without having the upper hand. This was a chosen approach. He also choses his tempo of operations, which is,
IMHO about 10 levels too high for the relative force balance.

The prerequisite for this situation is the belief that you should be able to stop massive counterstrikes without achiving strategic air superiority
first, which I don´t.

This is no critizism, its just my opinion.




I think there is a danger here in thinking of bases as 'a single airfield'. If you look at most at-start bases, places with a single major airfield tend to rate 3-4, with f.e Singapore as a '6' (one paved and I think two (or three?) grass fields), Pearl Harbour a '10' (probably about 8-10 actual airfields), Sydney an '8' (I think 4, but pretty large ones)...a hex is a pretty big place - if I drew a box around a 46mi*46mi section of the UK there'd probably be e: hang on, I did:



Ok, it's a box rather than a hex, and it's right in the middle of 8th AF country, but that's just the ones that were spottable in five minutes from 20 miles up - I expect a bunch more will have deteriorated since then. Most of them are will-take-a-USAAF-Bomber-Group size, too, not little things...

I mean, realistically in the Hakodate situation you'd have a large number (10? 20? who knows) of airfields spread out along the southwestern peninsula of Hokkaido - it's not a big airfield, then 45 miles, then a big airfield, then 45 miles etc. Hokkaido is not as flat as Cambridgeshire, but then there's likely to be rather less consideration for whoever's on the land already in this sort of situation...

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6518
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:41:19 PM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.


1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)


You should negotiate a HR with Raeder to deal with that problem.

There is nothing you can do against it. It does not matter how many planes you have on cap. There is a number of escorts which is nessecary to soak up all firing passes and then the strike package will always go throuhg.

If you are bored change the Downfall Scenario. Creat a Hex with 50CV/50CVE or any number of carriers + planes. Fill all the carriers with fighters, extend the carriers capacity. Create a CAP of 5000,8000 or 20000 planes. Numbers do not matter as the CAP will just have no effect. Send in a strike with a 500+ escorts and your carriers will sink.

Or fill a lvl 9 airbase with any number of planes you want (I did a test with 8000 or so planes on cap). If the strike package has enough escorts to soak up the firing passes the bombers will get through.

The engine is how it is and as soon as you start to "exploit" it you have a problem. You either need a fix (size limit of strike or fix on the firing pass limits) or a HR to deal with it.

Btw. just limiting the size of the strike package wont fix the problem either. You either create again some heavy leakiness like it is now or you create an inpenetrable CAP again.

I more or less negotiated a HR in my PBEM but our problem is only carrier related as my opponent does not have the production to just waste a 500 escorts to bring a strike on an airbase through.

< Message edited by beppi -- 2/5/2012 9:45:25 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6519
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:42:02 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1617
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
Yes there is definately a problem, no one can deny that. There is a way around it (for the Allies). Play historical. My game with Dan (Canoerebel) lasted until mid 45 and I can assure you for the last six months or so I never got any massive raids to go in together to swamp his CAP. I'm guessing the reason was we were fighting mainly in the Formosa/South China Sea/PI area at the time. I got lots of a/c to attack but the co-ordination was horrible. However with all those air HQs and size 9+ airfields in Japan you can get these totally ludicrous 1000+ a/c raids going in at the same time.

Cut off the Jap players oil and they will collapse eventually. The Allies CAN win the war without sending any ships within air attack range of the home islands or setting foot on them........

PS> Allied ship based flak is a joke and badly needs adjusting for the final patch.


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6520
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:45:58 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6094
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Lobaron, i count the numbers of ready fighters. 2900 were present at an avg of 50% CAP. So that should mean imho that 400 were airborne, 400 on stand by and 400 more acrambling... But the rest of them not present in that 50% CAP should have been scrambled... That's how it works with small or medium air battles so i'm pretty sure it should work for monster battles too.

And imho a level 9 AF doesn't mean a single huge AF but a serie of connected AFs.l.
But the point, again, isn't the losses on the ground but the fact that the bombers always get through...and there's no way to prevent it.
Nemo is right. I have tested it the very same thing after my CV fleet defeat: no matter how good your cap is...the CVs willALWAYS get sunk. Always.
Hakodate is overstacked. Ok...but what if rader had sent 400 betties against my BBs at hakodate instead of the Helens? Where should i base my fleet? How should i defend my fleet?
Tell me which is the way to succesfully cover my fleet and i will try it...but at th moment i don't see how...


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6521
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:47:16 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
I'm not sure anything can be drawn from the combat model as 3000 fighters over an airfield is not practical.

Operating with dual runway ops and launching 4 a/c per minute it would take 750 minute to launch the cap - over 10 hours. If you launch 8 a/c per minute (1 a/c every 15 seconds from each runway) it would take 5 hours to launch the CAP. It is possible to take off in multiple a/c formations but it increases the taxi and start up times....continuous take-offs are limited by prop wash and wingtip vorticies after a period of time. This doesn't take into account a/c landing from lack of fuel or staging for takeoffs, fueling, and arming.....

Now try to set the landing patterns and approach avenues, formation rally points and altitudes, patrol areas and vector channels, this doesn't even consider the weather.

If one reads Galland's book "The First and the Last" he notes that most a/c are totally out of position during the defense and attack of bomber groups and the best pilots only engage in moments of combat.

So if you want to fix the combat model you first have to fix the number of aircraft available for the raids - on both sides.

Results of the first Schweinfurt raid from Wiki, so the numbers are approximated. This is tiny compared to what has been going on in this game, and it emptied the airfields across the European continent......

Strength
376 B-17s
268 P-47 sorties
191 Spitfire sorties

Approx. 400 Bf 109, Bf 110, Fw 190 and other fighters

Casualties and losses
60 bombers, 3 P-47s, and 2 Spitfires lost
58-95 bombers heavily damaged
7 KIA, 21 WIA, 557 MIA or POW 25-27 fighters

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 6522
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:51:07 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3648
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
If it's not fixable in code how about a scen which does the following?

Much less supply (for both sides). I actually think a 90% reduction would be about right. Also stop Refineries from producing it.
Much less av support (for both sides).
No airfield has an SPS bigger than 5, therefore the number of mega-stack airfields will be 0.

< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 2/5/2012 9:54:02 PM >

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 6523
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:51:43 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
oh, and flak would be irrelevant over the field as it couldn't be brought into action without causing huge numbers of friendly losses considering that the Allied are operating non stop flight ops to maintain the CAP and have to land at the base in question and are engaged in air to air over head.....

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 6524
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:52:06 PM   
JeffK


Posts: 5130
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
crsutton, touched on this,

How do you get escort and raid co-ordination, over such a distance and with supposedly crappy pilots?



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 6525
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 9:54:22 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6094
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.


1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)


You should negotiate a HR with Raeder to deal with that problem.

There is nothing you can do against it. It does not matter how many planes you have on cap. There is a number of escorts which is nessecary to soak up all firing passes and then the strike package will always go throuhg.

If you are bored change the Downfall Scenario. Creat a Hex with 50CV/50CVE or any number of carriers + planes. Fill all the carriers with fighters, extend the carriers capacity. Create a CAP of 5000,8000 or 20000 planes. Numbers do not matter as the CAP will just have no effect. Send in a strike with a 500+ escorts and your carriers will sink.

Or fill a lvl 9 airbase with any number of planes you want (I did a test with 8000 or so planes on cap). If the strike package has enough escorts to soak up the firing passes the bombers will get through.

The engine is how it is and as soon as you start to "exploit" it you have a problem. You either need a fix (size limit of strike or fix on the firing pass limits) or a HR to deal with it.

Btw. just limiting the size of the strike package wont fix the problem either. You either create again some heavy leakiness like it is now or you create an inpenetrable CAP again.

I more or less negotiated a HR in my PBEM but our problem is only carrier related as my opponent does not have the production to just waste a 500 escorts to bring a strike on an airbase through.



I agreebut given the present strategical situation, which would be a good HR?

And Miller...it's nt that i'm not laying historical...it just happened to me to conquer hokkaido...but if i was at iwo jima or okinawa i don't think the situation would be much different...

What do u suggest? Me and rader are really open for any suggested solution cause we badly want to keep on playin...but it's simply becoming impossible...

And the same will apply to japan.
Tomorrow i will be able to waste 400 wildcats and send 800 bombers to fire bomb tokyo...but i simply cannot efford to lose those escorts...

Pretty sad if u ask me :-(

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 6526
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 10:07:55 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Ok, it's a box rather than a hex, and it's right in the middle of 8th AF country, but that's just the ones that were spottable in five minutes from 20 miles up - I expect a bunch more will have deteriorated since then. Most of them are will-take-a-USAAF-Bomber-Group size, too, not little things...

I mean, realistically in the Hakodate situation you'd have a large number (10? 20? who knows) of airfields spread out along the southwestern peninsula of Hokkaido - it's not a big airfield, then 45 miles, then a big airfield, then 45 miles etc. Hokkaido is not as flat as Cambridgeshire, but then there's likely to be rather less consideration for whoever's on the land already in this sort of situation...



This is a good post but having been to the area in question the topography doesn't support the airfield density that you propose. I can see possibly a few more makeshift airfields but nothing that could support the density of a/c that are being put into play. This doesn't even discuss the fuel and ammo storage issues that makeshift fields have to deal with. Operating in the weather in the tropics is a different question entirely from operating in Norther Japan.........

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 6527
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 10:27:02 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16465
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The problem does seem to be one of scope. Though there were 500+ bomber raids, I'm not sure there were ever 500 escorts in a raid.

Can you not move your bombers outside of Helen range, put the fighter squadrons at 100% CAP (unless they are flying a strike mission) and then move squadrons out of range when they get fatgiued. In this fashion, there will be less on the ground if a raid gets through.

How about inventories of senescent bombers? Back-convert to Vildabest and B-18's and put them in a forward airfield as bait. When he loses 500 fighters to kill a bunch of Bolos he will: A) Be pissed off B) Change his strategy.

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 6528
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 11:09:49 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
Or to put this into GJ's terms....GJ has upgraded his bed from a standard Queen to a King sized waterbed. He has increased the number of women manning his bedroom from 4 to 8 and sometimes overstacks to get 10 women on the mattress. At some point there are so many women involved in the "fur ball" that GJ fails to engage them and they see no action during that sortie.

While it may look good to have so many women "involved", some end up being only being so much eye candy as they are out of position.....

....let alone the ones in the process of undressing or showering are using up GJ's supplies of TP, beer, shaving razors, pretzels, clean shirts, etc....

< Message edited by desicat -- 2/5/2012 11:15:07 PM >

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 6529
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 11:22:05 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

Or to put this into GJ's terms....GJ has upgraded his bed from a standard Queen to a King sized waterbed. He has increased the number of women manning his bedroom from 4 to 8 and sometimes overstacks to get 10 women on the mattress. At some point there are so many women involved in the "fur ball" that GJ fails to engage them and they see no action during that sortie.

While it may look good to have so many women "involved", some end up being only being so much eye candy as they are out of position.....

....let alone the ones in the process of undressing or showering are using up GJ's supplies of TP, beer, shaving razors, pretzels, clean shirts, etc....




_____________________________



(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 6530
RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 11:59:59 PM   
Schlemiel

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline
While I appreciate the effort of such an... ahem... "extended" metaphor, I agree with grafin here.

But since we are playing star wars in the pacific anyway, can't we imagine huge concrete structures with dectuple decked runways equipped with elevators salvaged from all those sunken carriers all over the place? And the AA guns are star wars lasers (which explains why they never hit anything, as accuracy is star wars is exponential proportional to the protagonist rating of the user).

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 6531
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 6:00:31 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7045
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Svar

quote:

And, if there are not penalties then there should be in future patches. The notion of 3,000 planes at one airfield is absurd.


I have been following this AAR for months and kept my mouth shut because I didn't have anything to contribute but this statement is just wrong. In any hex of 40 miles by 40 miles there could be many active airfields. Oahu alone probably had over 10. While some were emergency landing fields there were 4 or 5 big ones if my memory from the mid 1970s is correct when I was stationed there in an aviation unit and spent many hours over the island from which I could see all of them including those no longer in use.


Sorry, not buying it. Oahu is not a good example. You are talking about an airfield complex that was built up over the course of a decade before and during the war. The same thing would not happen at Port Moresby, Siboret Island, Sabang, (all potential level 9) or most anywhere else on the map during wartime and within the time frames we are talking about. Some of the Japanese city hexes could already have the airbase complexes, But to take an undeveloped hex and build it up to level 9 in two months is not the sane as you found at Oahu and should not be considered so. Perhaps some bases in major city hexes should be given large bonuses but for the most part even a level 9 airfield should be very limited. It certainly might help in limiting these massive air battles.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Svar)
Post #: 6532
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 6:39:04 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6094
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Guys, i think we're losing the point here.
If the cose, the rule, says a level 9 af doesn't get overstacked it's useless to talk about it. The true point here is that CAP isn't efficient anymore above a certain number of escort. Which applies to CVs or to bases. It doesn't matter.
And if this assumption is true, that means that in late war scenarios the allies have no defences for their CVs or their advanced bases.
The same can be said for Japanese cities. Japan cannot defend them against a well escorted raid, no matter how numerous and good the CAP is... Wth the only difference that Japan can easily lose 400 escort fighters 10 times in a month, while the allies can probably efford only 1 of those raid every 2 months.

So my question remains the same: what should i do?

Me and Rader had a long skype chat yesterday. We agree on everything.... But we couldn't find a solution...not even in terms of HR....
Any suggestion?
Cause Rader tomorrow could send 400 oscars piloted by crappy pilots escorting 400 betties...and that would simply be the end of my BB fleet....so i have to evacuate everything in range of the japanese escort...is that a solution?????

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6533
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 6:47:44 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo
Ok, it's a box rather than a hex, and it's right in the middle of 8th AF country, but that's just the ones that were spottable in five minutes from 20 miles up - I expect a bunch more will have deteriorated since then. Most of them are will-take-a-USAAF-Bomber-Group size, too, not little things...

I mean, realistically in the Hakodate situation you'd have a large number (10? 20? who knows) of airfields spread out along the southwestern peninsula of Hokkaido - it's not a big airfield, then 45 miles, then a big airfield, then 45 miles etc. Hokkaido is not as flat as Cambridgeshire, but then there's likely to be rather less consideration for whoever's on the land already in this sort of situation...



GreyJoy, kfsgo, re: stacking penalty.

There is no hardcoded penalty on lvl 9/10 (I don´t like that fact but so it is...).
I am aware you can abstract the base hex into several airfields, but game mechanic wise it is not.
Why? because you close a single runway. Increase runway damage + service damage above 100 and no
plane flies, from no abstracted AF. Anyways, how you view it this does not change the problem of
overstacking.

I am not referring to aviation support overstacking or the 50eng/AF level limitation.

Rather I am talking about hit probability depending on A/C concentration in a single hex. The
game enging calculates hit probability on A/C on the ground by using the total # of planes on the
ground. The more are sitting around, the higher the number of hit planes.

A comparision to those ground losses, while disregarding A2A would be operation Bodenplatte.
The Luftwaffe in a much worse shape than rader is now, destroyed hundreds of A/C on the ground
in an area where the Allies had long achived air supremacy.

But since GreyJoy is not concerned with ground losses themselves lets leave it as is.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 6534
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 6:48:14 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Lobaron, i count the numbers of ready fighters. 2900 were present at an avg of 50% CAP. So that should mean imho that 400 were airborne, 400 on stand by and 400 more acrambling... But the rest of them not present in that 50% CAP should have been scrambled... That's how it works with small or medium air battles so i'm pretty sure it should work for monster battles too.

And imho a level 9 AF doesn't mean a single huge AF but a serie of connected AFs.l.
But the point, again, isn't the losses on the ground but the fact that the bombers always get through...and there's no way to prevent it.
Nemo is right. I have tested it the very same thing after my CV fleet defeat: no matter how good your cap is...the CVs willALWAYS get sunk. Always.
Hakodate is overstacked. Ok...but what if rader had sent 400 betties against my BBs at hakodate instead of the Helens? Where should i base my fleet? How should i defend my fleet?
Tell me which is the way to succesfully cover my fleet and i will try it...but at th moment i don't see how...




Does the combat report truncate data?
Because if I add the numbers below I get 1192 total fighters.

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 16
Seafire L.III x 3
Mosquito FB.VI x 14
Spitfire VIII x 72
Thunderbolt I x 12
Thunderbolt II x 6
Spitfire VIII x 20
F4U-1D Corsair x 25
P-38J Lightning x 16
P-38L Lightning x 66
P-39N2 Airacobra x 11
P-39N1 Airacobra x 10
P-40N5 Warhawk x 56
P-40N26 Warhawk x 6
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 21
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 92
P-51B Mustang x 36
FM-2 Wildcat x 48
F4U-1A Corsair x 93
F4U-1D Corsair x 139
F6F-3 Hellcat x 184
F6F-5 Hellcat x 246


Anyways, what I do agree on is, we have an issue with regards to large strike packages.
The underlying problem looks like one of target selection routine of CAP and/or escort behaviour, or
max size of strike packages.

The recent combat replay displays the issue nicely: You were not able to penetrate the escorts with
CAP numerous enough that this should be possible.
The problem is not number of planes shot down, this is within realistic figures, but that the fight
solely was carried out CAP vs. escort, leaving no fighters to engage the bombers.

This is what has to be looked at.

There are two obvious solutions to this issue:

1) this was already pointed out by hades1001 in the tech forum: limit the maximum possible number
of aircraft in a single raid package, independent on how good coordination is. This would enable
CAP to overwhelm the escorting fighters.

2) change the logic of how CAP selects targets and/or how escorts react to attacking fighters.
I do not know enough of the model here to get an estimate on how predictable modification on this
part would be, so I am unable to guess if this is possible.

What we have to be careful though is not to tilt the balance the other way with the above solutions,
meaning no attack gets through because CAP becomes overpowered.




As to your strategy question, and also to explain why I still am reluctant to view your game as representative
for getting "realistic" results:

In my opinion you should have bogged down in Hokkaido long ago, waging a defensive air war and pose
a threat to Honshu, while exploiting raders comittment to defend the HIs against your invasion on
at least two other fronts.
Germany and Japan broke down because they were forced to fighter on multiple frontlines spreading out
the defensive forces.

I think Germany is a much better example to compare to your current situation.
You are trying to win an air war against "Germany" as the "8th airforce" without the backup of the
Russian front meatgrinder. It is a farfetched analogy but I think a good one.
If Germany had been able to concentrate 90% of the Luftwaffe against the 8th instead of attriting the
units on the SU front, the losses for the US would have been brutal bordering to desatrous.

Your situation is similar: You pose a single threat vector against an airforce as strong as your own.
This makes any decision easy for rader.
I know it is a bit late to point this out, and I have the benefit of hindsight, but you made a brilliant
invasion without maximising the benefit from it. The benefit is, you give rader a problem he needs
to adress, and if only by building up a homeland defense by pulling back units from other fronts thats fine.
But you don´t exploit this required force relocation.
The consequence of a successful invasion of Hokkaido should be an increased pressure on DEI, Burma,
China, the island hopping campaign to the Phillipines, at least two of the above.

You are only beginning to wear rader out, to advance in the mest defended area before this has been
accomplished is the most costly approach, and the most likely to fail.

I know it is late war, but the decision to proceed while the air war hangs in balance was for the
wrong reasons (IMHO a bit of a victory disease on its own, the percieved time pressure, and your
vocal audience).



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6535
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 6:53:53 AM   
apdsfs

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/28/2012
Status: offline
Rader has the same opinion on the CAP problem with you ... that`s a good news
But it`s impossible to limit the total number of crafts used in a single action into a single hex...
Mayby you can try limiting numbers of japanese escort fighters took off from a single base every turn,that will reduce the chance of a 'unexceptable big wave'...



(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6536
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 7:26:27 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5130
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Youse Guys are playing with a special CAP patch, has something gone awry ?
From LoBaron
Rather I am talking about hit probability depending on A/C concentration in a single hex. The
game enging calculates hit probability on A/C on the ground by using the total # of planes on the
ground. The more are sitting around, the higher the number of hit planes.


With that many aircraft in the hex, the bombs had to hit something!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to apdsfs)
Post #: 6537
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 8:03:03 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6094
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Lobaron, i count the numbers of ready fighters. 2900 were present at an avg of 50% CAP. So that should mean imho that 400 were airborne, 400 on stand by and 400 more acrambling... But the rest of them not present in that 50% CAP should have been scrambled... That's how it works with small or medium air battles so i'm pretty sure it should work for monster battles too.

And imho a level 9 AF doesn't mean a single huge AF but a serie of connected AFs.l.
But the point, again, isn't the losses on the ground but the fact that the bombers always get through...and there's no way to prevent it.
Nemo is right. I have tested it the very same thing after my CV fleet defeat: no matter how good your cap is...the CVs willALWAYS get sunk. Always.
Hakodate is overstacked. Ok...but what if rader had sent 400 betties against my BBs at hakodate instead of the Helens? Where should i base my fleet? How should i defend my fleet?
Tell me which is the way to succesfully cover my fleet and i will try it...but at th moment i don't see how...




Does the combat report truncate data?
Because if I add the numbers below I get 1192 total fighters.

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 16
Seafire L.III x 3
Mosquito FB.VI x 14
Spitfire VIII x 72
Thunderbolt I x 12
Thunderbolt II x 6
Spitfire VIII x 20
F4U-1D Corsair x 25
P-38J Lightning x 16
P-38L Lightning x 66
P-39N2 Airacobra x 11
P-39N1 Airacobra x 10
P-40N5 Warhawk x 56
P-40N26 Warhawk x 6
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 21
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 92
P-51B Mustang x 36
FM-2 Wildcat x 48
F4U-1A Corsair x 93
F4U-1D Corsair x 139
F6F-3 Hellcat x 184
F6F-5 Hellcat x 246



Don't know why but it seems that only those fighters included in the 50% CAP are listed above, while all the others (which are supposed to be ready to be put into action when not having other missions to accomplish) are left completely out of the combat.
This doesn't happen in small raids. If you put a single squadron of 25 fighters on 50% CAP with no other missions to perform, 13 planes will be devoted immediately to CAP while the other 12 will be scrambled later. This doesn't happen with big raids... it is exactly the same thing that happened (if you remember) with my CVs...a lot of units didn't perform...there seems to be an inner code that limit the total number of CAP to be engaged...

However i do agree that probably the only good way to deal with this problem is to divide both the attacking raid and the CAP into smaller packages, so that the combat model (which works well for small raids) won't be bogged.

And Jeffk, no, the new exe we're using actually gives MORE passages to CAP (300 against 200 i believe)...so in the normal exe everybody is playing the problem should be even bigger!!!!

However it's pretty easy to reproduce this problem, as Nemo and Beppi pointed out.
Simply take a late war scenario like Downfall and place 400 Betties and 400 Zeros with 60exp at Tokyo. Then sail in range the mighty allied DS and put every fighter squadron on 100% CAP (or whatever) and see the results...always the same: no matter what you do the CAP will deal with the escort (mauling it well above any logical level) and won't be able to fire a single shot to the bombers.... and i mean A SINGLE BULLET!

The strategical situation doesn't change the fact that you cannot defend a fleet or a base against these large raids. If, after i took Hokkaido, i had gone for the PI with 25 CVs and 60 CVEs covering my invasion, it would have been the same: CV/CVEs all sunk and the invasion fleet doomed.

Everybody can easily reproduce this problem...and i seriously think it should be addressed cause in late war scenarios this feature makes impossible for the allies to advance

To be clear: with a raid like this last one, i would expect less oscars shot down (is it possible that every single escort fighter out of 500 gets shot down!?!?) and more bombers damaged, shot down, forced to turn back etc...

Flak is another issue...clearly a problem

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6538
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 8:04:20 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6094
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apdsfs

Rader has the same opinion on the CAP problem with you ... that`s a good news
But it`s impossible to limit the total number of crafts used in a single action into a single hex...
Mayby you can try limiting numbers of japanese escort fighters took off from a single base every turn,that will reduce the chance of a 'unexceptable big wave'...






Very very difficult...how can you force Rader not to escort his bombers in the best possible way?

(in reply to apdsfs)
Post #: 6539
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 8:35:50 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
The strategical situation doesn't change the fact that you cannot defend a fleet or a base against these large raids. If, after i took Hokkaido, i had gone for the PI with 25 CVs and 60 CVEs covering my invasion, it would have been the same: CV/CVEs all sunk and the invasion fleet doomed.


What I find funny is that nobody until now has found the most obvious solution on the topic.

About the first thing I concluded when reading about problems with the combat model on high force concentration,
was: avoid high force concentration.

Everybody knows now that - independent on whether this is a correct representation of reality or not - putting
60 CVE in one hex does not achieve the desired result.

What is the solution for the problem?

Its easy: don´t do it. Who forces any player to put 60 carrers into a single hex? Absolutely noone.

Naval attack does not allow target hex selection. By spreading out large fleet concentration over several
hexes you either achieve the same thinning/spread out of naval strikes, and so reduce strike size accordingly,
or, if there still is a single strike, only present a certain percentage of ships as targets.
Whichever way the naval strike(s) go, you will not end up losing the number of ships you did.

The reason you lost 60 carriers to one large strike in a single hex was, that there were 60 carriers in a single
hex in the first place, so that basically forced the result.


quote:


To be clear: with a raid like this last one, i would expect less oscars shot down (is it possible that every single escort fighter out of 500 gets shot down!?!?) and more bombers damaged, shot down, forced to turn back etc...


Definitely. This should be adressed by either capping max package size or adapting CAP target selection/escort behaviour
logic, where personall I would prefer the former as it sounds like less tangling with a complex system.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6540
Page:   <<   < prev  216 217 [218] 219 220   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: another disaster Page: <<   < prev  216 217 [218] 219 220   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

0.188