Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
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  217 218 [219] 220 221   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 8:49:08 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 960
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
Some points about the general Escort-bombers-CAP-Flak engagement package that are problematic :
- Allied flak is way too weak. We all know it, it wouldn't be much fun for JFBs (of which I am one) to have in a 1943 CV battle 60 or 70 TBs or DBs be able to have a run at the CVs for 1 or 2 hits, 30 damaged planes and 30 destroyed, so a compromise with history, like in many other aspects of the game is needed, BUT the actual situation is absurd. a jap player should be sweating against the CAP and the FLAK just as much.
- The problem of firing passes and massive battles for the code.
- the general dynamic of escort protecting bombers and allowing them to go through. There should be a bigger disruption factor that disrupts the escort and allows some of the CAP to attack the bombers, and a bigger disruption factor for the Bombers that if over and hex with 1000s of fighters and massive CAP would make many of them turn back, bomb short or long, etc...

the whole dynamics of the escort-bomber-cap is pretty bad anyway. good planes with good pilots as escorts shouldn't be sacrificial lambs, and bad planes and bad pilots shouldn't be able to get everything through..

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6541
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 9:37:44 AM   
hkbhsi

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 4/22/2007
From: Rome, Italy
Status: offline
I have beeen following this AAR for a long time but I have very rarely commented. I am also involved in a PBEM that is now in early 45 (albeit totally different from this one from a strategic point) so I have had my shares of large air battles.

My humble opinion on the situation at hand is the following: there is clearly a problem with CAP being unable to stop mega raids, however there are a few peculiar points in this game that greatly exacerbate the problem:

- total unhistorical gameplay by both players have reduced the game to being fought in a 3 hex radius, with 99% of units in a small part of the map while the rest of the world is left alone. I let you all judge if it is historically plausible to have Indian and British divisions in Hokkaido while most of the British Empire is still in Japanese hand;

- ridiculous HRs against night bombing that allow both players to field thousands of planes in the same airfield without fear of them being torched by a night attack, with the obvious results of being able to achieve perfect coordination when launching the strike;

Having said that, and barring a total rewamp of the air model, the solution to the aforementioned CAP overrunning problem, IMHO, is to disperse force and attack over a broad front and from different vectors to prevent your enemy to concentrate against you.

< Message edited by hkbhsi -- 2/6/2012 9:40:21 AM >

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 6542
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 10:31:42 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Very good post hkbhsi, i agree on all your points!

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to hkbhsi)
Post #: 6543
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 10:53:26 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6238
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
I agree guys that this particular game has gone to the very limit of historical plausible (sp!?).
I also agree that attacking on a very broad front with multiple vectors in a certain way can mitigate the problem.
But the point remains the same: there's a flaw in the CAP system.

LoBaron: what you proposed is logical, but it's not a solution, it's a workaround.
If i don't place 60 CVEs and 30 CVs in a single hex and instead i divide them into 2 different hexes, i end up having 30 CVEs and 15CVs sunk instead of 60+30... better, for sure...but this doesn't adress the problem.
Again: i'm not arguing against the number of planes destroyed on the ground and i'm not arguing against the 20 CVs sunk in a single turn. I'm arguing against the CAP being limited to a fixed number of "shots", while the attacker can field unfinite number of bombers+escorts. This is plain wrong and against any logic.
If the attacker (being the allies or japan, doesn't matter) can field infinite numbers of planes in a single raid, the defender MUST be able to do the same with his CAP.

Not that i'm supporting the idea of MEGA Raids against MEGA CAP... but as it stands the game the defender will always be toasted, no matter what.

This is true also for CVs vs CVs battles in late war scenarios.

You say spread your planes throughout different bases. Ok, let's imagine i had 500 fighters at Hakodate, 500 at Sapporo, 500 at Kushiro, 500 at the other base north of Hakodate and 500 at Bihoro.
How this would help in defending my invasion fleet loading at Bihoro or my BBs at Hakodate against a raid composed of 400 escorts and 400 betties?

That's the point: if these kind of raids are not stoppable, it's simply impossible to defend anything in range of japanese escort...so to say you are simply forced to remain 15 hexes far from any level 9 AF, sit back, and rely only on a strat bombing campaign...so to say in late war scenarios the CVs are completely useless cause there is no way you can ever think of landing anywhere close a level 9 AF...

And i repeat: i'm not saying my CAP should act as an impenetrable wall of iron...i do like the idea that some of the bombers get through...some others leak inside the CAP and damage or sink some valuable ships...

This may be a very particular game, but i think that the examples we're experimenting here will be easily reproduced in many of your games that reach this late war stages

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6544
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 11:17:00 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
LoBaron: what you proposed is logical, but it's not a solution, it's a workaround.
If i don't place 60 CVEs and 30 CVs in a single hex and instead i divide them into 2 different hexes, i end up having 30 CVEs and 15CVs sunk instead of 60+30... better, for sure...but this doesn't adress the problem.
Again: i'm not arguing against the number of planes destroyed on the ground and i'm not arguing against the 20 CVs sunk in a single turn.


Who suggests that you should put 30 CVE in two hexes instead of 60 in one hex?
How about putting 10 in 6 Hexes, or spreading out even more? Who forces you to attack one
landing site only with such an opposition?

You deliberately focused the action to 1-2 hexes, in the face of a completely intact and numerous airforce.

Opinions may vary but I never believed, and only will be very hard to convince, that such a situation
should end in anything else than a brutal defeat, more so if you don´t have the element of surprise which is
impossible on such a small area.

I agree that this has been enhanced by the game engines focus on escorts before bombers, which clearly
increased the gravity of the situation.

Edit: Yes, it is not a solution but a workaround.



quote:


I'm arguing against the CAP being limited to a fixed number of "shots", while the attacker can field unfinite number of bombers+escorts. This is plain wrong and against any logic.
If the attacker (being the allies or japan, doesn't matter) can field infinite numbers of planes in a single raid, the defender MUST be able to do the same with his CAP.


No, I don´t think so.

The advantage of an attacker is always the ability to achieve a higher force concentration than the defender.
He can launch strikes from several airfields and project power to a single point on the map, wheareas the defender
is only able to react with an equally distributed CAP covering all potential targets without knowing where the strike
will hit.

Airwar is like this. It will always be easier to focus an attack rather than a defense.

So, while I agree the distribution of "shots" should be better distributed between escorts and bombers I hold
the opinion that a large coordinated strike will always be able to penetrate a defense.

To balance the theoretical infinite number of bombers+escorts with an infinite number of "shots" for the CAP
is not in accordance to reality, where the timespan to react against an attack is not unlimited but finite.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/6/2012 11:33:18 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6545
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 11:20:51 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7079
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
There does need to be a fix regardless of style of play.

You can easily say DON'T PLAY THIS WAY or this is what will happen if you do, but there is potential to affect every style of play in late game if these things are not altered. Overstacking rules could take care of some of these problems for LBA, but CV battles are a different story. Historically the US did put a bunch of CVs together in close proximity and made it work. They did get within range of concentrations of enemy aircraft, and they suffered losses but the CAP was never ineffective to the level we're seeing here.

Nemo has shown that even historically plausible battles can be squashed by overwhelming the CAP and sinking a bunch of CVs.

We'll keep having fun until 44, but it would be great if there was a concerted effort for players to come together to help MichaelM figure out the problems through this kind of testing and helping to suggest what COULD happen with the game while he's still able to tweak things. At least find out if a change to this system is even possible. If not, the we have to divise HRs to help deal with it.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6546
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 12:14:30 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.




Only quoting above in bold.

Lol, mate. Noone? Really? I can think about one, well two if you include the airroutine boss.

What is still funny to me is that yet we are most if not all grown up here, most people still haven't realized the engine just can't handle these numbers. It's no bug, it's no flaw, it's just the code that can't handle it. That's all you have to accept, the game just can't handle it. Looking for real life excuses again and again is just... omg, saying what this is would probably end in a personal attack.




_____________________________


(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 6547
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 12:36:51 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7079
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.




Only quoting above in bold.

Lol, mate. Noone? Really? I can think about one, well two if you include the airroutine boss.

What is still funny to me is that yet we are most if not all grown up here, most people still haven't realized the engine just can't handle these numbers. It's no bug, it's no flaw, it's just the code that can't handle it. That's all you have to accept, the game just can't handle it. Looking for real life excuses again and again is just... omg, saying what this is would probably end in a personal attack.



I'm no programmer. I understand your point, but it's a bit defeatist to say 'oh, well, it's too big lets not try to fix it.' It can't hurt to try to bring up the idea. Many things have gotten very much better through MichaelM's work. Perhaps there are things that could make this better. Not perfect, but better.

To say it's just not fixable so lets not talk about it really doesn't help much. Conversely, to just say 'play a historical game' is not really helping either. Some of this will affect historical play according to the information some contributors who've been there are pointing out.

The code probably can't handle big battles well. But is there any way of helping it by tweaking the game so that it can handle them better?


< Message edited by obvert -- 2/6/2012 12:38:32 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6548
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 1:30:31 PM   
princep01

 

Posts: 937
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Hummmm, somewhere in all this flotsam and jetsom of computer programming speak is the once infamous Greyjoy AAR. I'm jut sure it is here somewhere,,,,,,

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6549
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 2:05:39 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4046
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: online
"Bug, workaround available" still means "bug".

Also it's not much of a workaround given the bombers suffer no such restriction. Maybe if the bombers also had a cap as to how many would actually function, then yes.

At some point you'll be in range of all those Japanese airfields, whether you go through Hokkaido or Luzon.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 2/6/2012 2:07:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6550
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 2:08:10 PM   
beppi

 

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

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.




Only quoting above in bold.

Lol, mate. Noone? Really? I can think about one, well two if you include the airroutine boss.

What is still funny to me is that yet we are most if not all grown up here, most people still haven't realized the engine just can't handle these numbers. It's no bug, it's no flaw, it's just the code that can't handle it. That's all you have to accept, the game just can't handle it. Looking for real life excuses again and again is just... omg, saying what this is would probably end in a personal attack.



I'm no programmer. I understand your point, but it's a bit defeatist to say 'oh, well, it's too big lets not try to fix it.' It can't hurt to try to bring up the idea. Many things have gotten very much better through MichaelM's work. Perhaps there are things that could make this better. Not perfect, but better.

To say it's just not fixable so lets not talk about it really doesn't help much. Conversely, to just say 'play a historical game' is not really helping either. Some of this will affect historical play according to the information some contributors who've been there are pointing out.

The code probably can't handle big battles well. But is there any way of helping it by tweaking the game so that it can handle them better?



Main problem with fixing such important aspects of the code is that you always run into the danger of "destroying" something which already works.

The base code of the game is maybe quite old (i would bet that there are parts of even the original WITP code) and you cannot just say -> mhhh lets change this on that position in the code and this on the other and then everything is fixed. Usually there are a gazillion of sideeffects of effects on other parts of the code and at least you substantially change the behavior of the air combat. Even of everything works out ok you change it. Take a look at the Tech forum where someone moaned around cause michaelm just increased the firing passes from 200 to 300. And it takes time to change and/or rebuild such a part of the engine. I doubt that michaelm has the time and maybe just not the "rights" to change such a substantial part of the game. We will see and lets continue to hope for a fix.

I really hope that there will be a solution for that problem cause the effects are nasty. GreyJoy and Raeder pushed it to the extremes but basically every game has the possibility to encounter that problems.

Even a classical Scen1 game with 1/5 of Raders production is able to do airstrikes which causes engine problems. Take 200 - 300 Bombers with high trained pilots, take 500+ escorts plane type does not matter, fill the escorts with green pilots from the training school and let the strike fly. Some strikes might split up and get shredded by the CAP, some strikes might not fly organized but if the strike flies in one group its a gg.

< Message edited by beppi -- 2/6/2012 2:12:27 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6551
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 2:11:35 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3046
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Airwar is like this. It will always be easier to focus an attack rather than a defense.

So, while I agree the distribution of "shots" should be better distributed between escorts and bombers I hold
the opinion that a large coordinated strike will always be able to penetrate a defense.



Sounds awfull alot like what a certain italian airgeneral said in 1928. Havent found any one after WWII that tended too agree with him.


As too overstacking and so on. Here are some figurs:

Hokkaido is 83,453.57 km2 (32,221.6 sq mi) big. In game it can have 7 lvl 9 AFs.
Norfolk county, Cambridgeshire, Essexs and Suffolk county are combined 16.500ish Km2. It held 100+ AFs historicly and 1000s and 1000s of aircraft. I dont think any one would say it was "overstacked". If u add southern eastern England u still wont even remotely get near 83000 Km2 and it had more or less infitive aircrafts with out being "over stacked".

Hokkaido have the size to prolly hold the the entire US and allied AFs of all theathers with out being "overstacked", before u start making any changes to lvl 9 and 10 AFs please. They are abstractions and should work like that.

Posssbly so when being attacking to a bigger degree than now.

Edit: if the germans had move their entire airforce to N france in 1944 and made 1000+ strike packages, would the allied been able to cope or not? does the size of S and SE England matter here compared too Hokkaido.

Operation Bodenplatte toke place it an area about the size of Hokkaido. For all its "succesfullness", looking at AA results from that and casulties on both sides, says alot. Escpecially considering how suprise played in and the alertness of GJ in game comparility speaking.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 2/6/2012 2:27:44 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6552
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 2:18:43 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5804
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, sad to say but I think you both are just exposing the limitation of the game engine. Unfortunately, this really becomes apparent late in the game. Most campaigns just never get this far so it is doubtful that these massive air battles were really ever playtested.
The real question is what are the solutions and can any real solutions be implemented.


As I am a ongoing contributor to Rader's, I have not followed this AAR. Just dropped in this morning given the circumstances.

I would have to agree here with you, I think this AAR and Pzb's are showing much the same as my testing in Downfall the last year. The results here are pretty typical of what I found. I will just add a caveat though ... if GJ ran this turn 10 times, he would get a couple very different results. My experience wasn't that this result was predictable, but rather, the results become highly UNPREDICTABLE. Meaning, sometimes the attacking planes will get through unscathed and wipe out their target, other times, the attackers get completely decimated. What I didn't see was the in between expected result: heavy fighter losses on both sides with just some bomb damage with many bombers turning back because of heavy CAP.

I'm not enough of an air combat expert to know if my expected result is accurate or if the big swing in results is accurate. At least good to know that both AAR's are confirming the results that I obtained in my testing with Downfall.

I would encourage both GJ and Rader to come up with some HR's. Hate to see this game end.

I think it pretty obvious that Michael and the "disbanded" dev team are working on this and have been for a few weeks already. Those are some very sharp guys and have been able to address other issues that have come up before (torpedoes, E class, AA guns, .... Need I say more? I have the utmost confidence that they will have something in the beta in a few more weeks to address this if it is humanly possible.

We just need to be patient and keep providing them data with which to work.

In the meantime, there have been several well thought suggestions for both HR's and how to proceed already made. I would support those and hope that instead of focusing on this issue, focus back on the game.

BANZAI!!!!

(IJFB warcry for those of you NOT familiar with it. )

<removes himself from this morass of AFB's )

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/6/2012 2:44:15 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6553
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 2:36:54 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7079
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

"Bug, workaround available" still means "bug".

Also it's not much of a workaround given the bombers suffer no such restriction. Maybe if the bombers also had a cap as to how many would actually function, then yes.

At some point you'll be in range of all those Japanese airfields, whether you go through Hokkaido or Luzon.


quote:


ORIGINAL: beppi
Even of everything works out ok you change it. Take a look at the Tech forum where someone moaned around cause michaelm just increased the firing passes from 200 to 300. And it takes time to change and/or rebuild such a part of the engine. I doubt that michaelm has the time and maybe just not the "rights" to change such a substantial part of the game. We will see and lets continue to hope for a fix.


It seems implausible that flotillas of bombers would be moving over a target simultaneously. It simply couldn't happen in life for so many reasons, but actual airspace is certainly one of them.

As you point out the number of passes was changed from 200 to 300. What if the number of planes over any target on attack also had a limit (as it seems EUBanana is suggesting)? Anything over this limit would be 'uncoordinated,' in the best and most realistic sense of the word. These later attacks would come over the target later as they did in reality. If coordination rules could be tweaked, and if they were tweaked so that big solid simultaneously arriving 350 bomber raids were not possible the results might just be more playable. It would certainly stop players from loading this many planes into one attack, from stacking bases to enhance coordination and they might have to play in a more historically plausible manner.

princep, I get you. I wish we had more of the play by play and less of the technical details, but this is part of the game unfortunately.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 6554
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 3:01:10 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3046
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron



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.


You should read up on OOBs for Luftwaffe and on the airwar IMHO.

Following is the luftwaffe figthers on the eastern front on 26 june 1944.
Luftflotte 1:
Stab/JG 54 (Dorpat)
I./JG 54 (Turku)(Finland)
2./JG 54 (Reval–Laksberg)
3./JG 54 (Reval–Laksberg
II./JG 54 (Immola)

Luftflotte 6.

I.Stab/JG.51 (Orscha)
II.Stab./JG.51 (Orscha)
I/JG.51 (Orscha)
III./JG.51 (Bobruisk)
IV./JG.51 (Mogilev)
III./JG.11 (Dokudovo)

Stab/JG.52 (Königsberg)
I./JG.52(Detach) (Königsberg)
II./JG.52(Detach) (Königsberg)

I.Stab/NJG.100 (Baranovichi)
1./NJG.100 (Baranovichi)
1./NJG.100 (Biala-Podlaska)
1./NJG.100 (detach) (Baranovichi)
1./NJG.100 (Detach) (Dokudovo)
3./NJG.100 (Radom)
3./NJG.100 (Dokudovo)
4./NJG.100 (Puchivichi

Luftflotte 4:

Stab/JG.52 (Manzar)
I./JG.52 (Leipzig Romania)
II./JG.52 (Manzar)
III./JG.52 (Roman)
15(Kroat)/JG.52 (Ziliºtea)

Stab/NSGr.4 (Hordinia)
1./NSGr.4 (Hordinia)

3 JGs and 1 NJG om the eastern front. Thats all. 8 AFs plus the other allied AFs from late '43, early 44 did face the number u cite or near.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 2/6/2012 3:09:14 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6555
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 3:42:42 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6238
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Ok guys, no need to get "hot"

We'll find a way to move over, don't worry. Me and Rader we both badly want to finish this match and i still want to conquer Tokyo .
For the moment we'll take a pause and we'll try to decide what to do.
Rader is pretty busy with his work and i too need a bit of focus on my job sometimes
Sorry for the inconvenience

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 6556
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 4:15:08 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
No, definitely not.

@Walloc: You´re right, I exaggerated percentage. No need to go into a historical discussion, if you find a better analogy to compare
the situation feel free.

As for the Italian General...well I guess we both know where the difference between my comment and his statement lies.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6557
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 4:26:22 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1936
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I think it pretty obvious that Michael and the "disbanded" dev team are working on this and have been for a few weeks already. Those are some very sharp guys and have been able to address other issues that have come up before (torpedoes, E class, AA guns, .... Need I say more? I have the utmost confidence that they will have something in the beta in a few more weeks to address this if it is humanly possible.


Well Torpedoes seem to work but E class is still mind bogglingly over powered and AA does not work properly. Shipboard AA has never worked. The allied 5/38" DP, radar controlled, proximity fused guns that were the backbone of the Allied ships AA defense just does not work. Never has. I also take exception to the continuing comment that "the code can't be fixed" . As former developer and now manager of large software systems the code can always be fixed, perhaps not cheaply, but it can always be fixed.

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6558
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 4:50:10 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18173
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
I'll cover you on the way out...

BANZAI!!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
BANZAI!!!!

(IJFB warcry for those of you NOT familiar with it. )

<removes himself from this morass of AFB's )






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 2/6/2012 5:00:58 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 6559
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 4:57:26 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.




Only quoting above in bold.

Lol, mate. Noone? Really? I can think about one, well two if you include the airroutine boss.

What is still funny to me is that yet we are most if not all grown up here, most people still haven't realized the engine just can't handle these numbers. It's no bug, it's no flaw, it's just the code that can't handle it. That's all you have to accept, the game just can't handle it. Looking for real life excuses again and again is just... omg, saying what this is would probably end in a personal attack.



I'm no programmer. I understand your point, but it's a bit defeatist to say 'oh, well, it's too big lets not try to fix it.' It can't hurt to try to bring up the idea. Many things have gotten very much better through MichaelM's work. Perhaps there are things that could make this better. Not perfect, but better.

To say it's just not fixable so lets not talk about it really doesn't help much. Conversely, to just say 'play a historical game' is not really helping either. Some of this will affect historical play according to the information some contributors who've been there are pointing out.

The code probably can't handle big battles well. But is there any way of helping it by tweaking the game so that it can handle them better?




oh, sorry, you misunderstand me, I'm not sayind it can't be fixed nor it shouldn't be fixed. I just wanted to point out that it's not a bug or so as it is now AND it sure is not to explain with any real life related fantasy story, it's the engine that can't handle it (as many other things that have huge numbers involved).

And YES I sure would like to have it fixed/tweaked/made to work.


edit: if it actually would be a bug, I would be glad to have it fixed.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/6/2012 5:00:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6560
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 5:01:23 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5804
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I think it pretty obvious that Michael and the "disbanded" dev team are working on this and have been for a few weeks already. Those are some very sharp guys and have been able to address other issues that have come up before (torpedoes, E class, AA guns, .... Need I say more? I have the utmost confidence that they will have something in the beta in a few more weeks to address this if it is humanly possible.


Well Torpedoes seem to work but E class is still mind bogglingly over powered and AA does not work properly. Shipboard AA has never worked. The allied 5/38" DP, radar controlled, proximity fused guns that were the backbone of the Allied ships AA defense just does not work. Never has. I also take exception to the continuing comment that "the code can't be fixed" . As former developer and now manager of large software systems the code can always be fixed, perhaps not cheaply, but it can always be fixed.

John,

The fix for both AA and E class is in DaBabes. Its done. You should fire up the scenario and see. I have incorporated into my mod and am VERY pleased with the work that John and the rest of the team did.

Whether it ever arrives in the official scenarios will greatly depend upon if there is another data patch and we all know the hassles (and uproar) that those create. However, there is a fix that needs to be acknowledged. I know that doesn't help players who only play "official" scenarios, but it isn't accurate to say that the issue hasn't been addressed. The fix just hasn't been released.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 6561
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 5:01:31 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3046
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

No, definitely not.

@Walloc: You´re right, I exaggerated percentage. No need to go into a historical discussion, if you find a better analogy to compare
the situation feel free.

As for the Italian General...well I guess we both know where the difference between my comment and his statement lies.


Hi Lobaron,

Wasnt me that introduced a historical situasion as basis for my arguement. The problem isnt the % but that the arguement comes from flawed logic. That the germans could have focused on the 8th AF and won with the losses for the US would have been brutal bordering to desatrous. It implies they had a high % of their planes else where that they could have drawn in. Im just pointing out that the remaining % of german figther airforce on the easthern front, or else where for that matter wasnt particular high so they alrdy did what u wanted them to do. So expecting a different result comming from the remaining 10-20%. I dont see it wouldnt have changed the overall result that much. Not that i can know for certain.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 2/6/2012 5:04:53 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6562
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 5:01:49 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5804
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'll cover you on the way out...

BANZAI!!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
BANZAI!!!!

(IJFB warcry for those of you NOT familiar with it. )

<removes himself from this morass of AFB's )

Thanks!!!!






_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6563
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 5:05:35 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1936
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

John,

The fix for both AA and E class is in DaBabes. Its done. You should fire up the scenario and see. I have incorporated into my mod and am VERY pleased with the work that John and the rest of the team did.

Whether it ever arrives in the official scenarios will greatly depend upon if there is another data patch and we all know the hassles (and uproar) that those create. However, there is a fix that needs to be acknowledged. I know that doesn't help players who only play "official" scenarios, but it isn't accurate to say that the issue hasn't been addressed. The fix just hasn't been released.


Will do, just fired up a game against the AI so it will probably be 1/2 year of playing time before I see a difference. BTW is it still OK to apply the beta patches or does that muddy the DaBabes waters?

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 6564
RE: another disaster - 2/6/2012 5:34:12 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5804
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Will do, just fired up a game against the AI so it will probably be 1/2 year of playing time before I see a difference. BTW is it still OK to apply the beta patches or does that muddy the DaBabes waters?

I'm running the latest beta just fine. Should be no issue as the beta is the exe and DaBabes is the data.

BTW, if it only takes you a half year to get into '43, I'm impressed. Takes me FAR longer! E's don't start appearing until about 4/43. You'll see the AA changes right away though. DP's work better and AA overall seems more real and certainly better balanced.

GJ: sorry for the highjack. I really am exiting now!

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/6/2012 5:35:51 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 6565
RE: another disaster - 2/7/2012 7:24:25 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6238
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Pax, u don 't need to apologise nor to go away! You are more thEn welcome here!

Ok guys, given that this problem won't be fixed today nor tomorrow ( considering the consequences),
What do u think would be a fair HR that will be able to " by pass" the CAP issue? What will let us carry on our match?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 6566
RE: another disaster - 2/7/2012 8:46:23 AM   
beppi

 

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

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Pax, u don 't need to apologise nor to go away! You are more thEn welcome here!

Ok guys, given that this problem won't be fixed today nor tomorrow ( considering the consequences),
What do u think would be a fair HR that will be able to " by pass" the CAP issue? What will let us carry on our match?



You need an HR related to the size of a potential airstrike. You do not necessarily need a HR to limit the CAP size as the engine currently limits the effective cap size. You need a "dynamic rule" as currently it is quite hard to really estimate how large a strike can be and how much escorts you need to cause problems. You might need to increase the numbers if CAP is impenetrable or decrease it if you still have a problem with to much planes bypassing the CAP.

Basically:

- Limit the size of a strike package during one phase (morning/afternoon) for a given target to around 250 - 300 planes total (might be a little bit higher or lower). You can do a strike in the morning and a strike in the evening.
- Limit the size of escorts to a reasonable percentage of around 40-50%. This is important to have a chance to protect ships against airstrikes. If you do a strike with 260 escorts filled with green pilots and 40 TB with top notch high skilled guys you still can bring them through without a scratch and score 20 torpedo hits.

The rule applies for any attacked target for a phase. You still can hit an airfield with 250 planes in the morning and 250 planes in the evening. It is the responsibility of the acting player to limit his strike sizes. And it is not "easy" to do so.

You have to take into account potential strike link up and coordinated strikes especially for naval strikes. It is a challenge for both of you to correctly execute such strikes.

You basically do not need to limit the CAP size but you can limit it if you want. The numbers (250-300) are an assumption by me, they might be a little bit higher but not much.


< Message edited by beppi -- 2/7/2012 8:48:23 AM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6567
RE: another disaster - 2/7/2012 8:59:30 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1515
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline
I'm intrigued, perhaps I missed this completely - not unusual I have to admit - but how does one set strikes so they happen in a specific phase? I have always assumed they just 'happened'?

Now where did I put my dunces' cap?

Roger

< Message edited by Roger Neilson II -- 2/7/2012 9:00:43 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 6568
RE: another disaster - 2/7/2012 9:29:55 AM   
beppi

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I'm intrigued, perhaps I missed this completely - not unusual I have to admit - but how does one set strikes so they happen in a specific phase? I have always assumed they just 'happened'?

Now where did I put my dunces' cap?

Roger


Not it is not easy to do so. Thats why i wrote "responsibility of the acting player". It is possible if you do a naval strike for example and a secondary mission an airfield attack. Then if no naval strike is conducted the airfield attack is done. But it is "tricky" and depends on luck. So if someone knows a 100% way to separate the strikes it is ok, as soon as they join up you have again a problem.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 6569
RE: another disaster - 2/7/2012 9:59:21 AM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1936
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Ok guys, given that this problem won't be fixed today nor tomorrow ( considering the consequences),
What do u think would be a fair HR that will be able to " by pass" the CAP issue? What will let us carry on our match?


"No air strike shall contain more than 400 planes. No CAP shall contain more than 400 planes."
Lots of smaller strikes I guess

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 6570
Page:   <<   < prev  217 218 [219] 220 221   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: another disaster Page: <<   < prev  217 218 [219] 220 221   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

0.398