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: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

 
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: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/6/2012 5:56:10 PM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 411
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
escorts are not sponges, this needs to change so that cap attacks bombers, or at least set your planes a priority fighters or bombers, and the escort fighters need to have priority set hunt interceptors or guard bombers

gary grigsbys eagle day to bombing the Reich did a pretty good job extrapolating this system, i hope its possible to borrow some of the ideas it uses for this game even though its turn based

_____________________________

Decisive Campaigns Case Pony


RRRH-Sr Mod Graphix ed V2: http://www.mediafire.com/?dt2wf7fc273zq5k

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 451
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/6/2012 7:01:03 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2619
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

escorts are not sponges, this needs to change so that cap attacks bombers, or at least set your planes a priority fighters or bombers, and the escort fighters need to have priority set hunt interceptors or guard bombers


This concept has been around since AH Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe gave the attcker an option although .. attack the escorts or the bombers. If you attack straight for the bombers the escorts get a free first shot and then the interceptors took thier toll .. otherwise escort vs. interceptor battles with eliminating all escorts before bomber losses.

I thought this was a cool way to handle this from a game standpoint in that decisions were made given probablites and consequinces taken.

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 452
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/6/2012 7:14:31 PM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

escorts are not sponges, this needs to change so that cap attacks bombers, or at least set your planes a priority fighters or bombers, and the escort fighters need to have priority set hunt interceptors or guard bombers


This concept has been around since AH Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe gave the attcker an option although .. attack the escorts or the bombers. If you attack straight for the bombers the escorts get a free first shot and then the interceptors took thier toll .. otherwise escort vs. interceptor battles with eliminating all escorts before bomber losses.

I thought this was a cool way to handle this from a game standpoint in that decisions were made given probablites and consequinces taken.


Historically it was usually a mix though.

You'd have your single engine interceptors mix it up with the escorts, then have your larger, cannon armed, often twin engined, destroyer squadrons vector into the bombers.

You didn't actually need to kill off the escort to get the destroyers through, just keep them busy enough worrying about their own engagement that they wouldn't spilt off and chase your destroyer squadrons that went after the bombers.

In a sense, historical bomber interception was really a pair of escorted strike packages.

The attacker was escorting his bombers to a city.
The defender was escorting his destroyers to the bomber formation.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 453
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/6/2012 10:10:15 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7182
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Of course one solution then creates another problem. Facing massive numbers of Japanese defenders as we find in both scen 1 and 2, if the issue is fixed and massive CAP will kill lots of bombers, then the Allied player will just run out of airplanes soon enough. Not to say this does not need lots of work or that it is not welcome but there has to be a complete examination of the factors and a complete rework is needed. Flak needs to work, realistic limits on bases and air attacks, realistic results for combat and so on. It is a bigger problem than just fixing one aspect of air combat. Don't expect a quick fix or at least one that works well.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 454
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/7/2012 4:14:07 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
First I want to apologize to Radar if he feels we are hi-jacking his AAR ... but he himself seems to be engaged in this multi-page discussion ... so I'll risk a second post ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader
Seriously guys, I am convinced the air to air combat system is a bit screwy, at least for large raids.


I agree ... but I would add ... it always has been this way ...
When we first started the project that became AE ... airbase stacking ... and changing the results curve of the large air battles were key priorities ... but at the same time ... the team agreed that complete re-writes of any major sections of code were "out of scope" and this including the air combat model. We did increase over-stacking penalties to the extent that the intensity of public complaints got one of our playtesters banned!
We also wanted to remove the phenomena where by a certain number of fighers was sufficient to wipe out large numbers of 4EB ... to wit this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=871580
But, we did not chuck the air combat model and start over again ... so there are still edges out there which if crossed will cause problems.
I'm only surprised that people who have played the game for years are surprised to find this out!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
It is a pity that this is the way the model works in the late game but saying that in the technical thread just gets you attacked so I doub it is going to be addressed.

Can you point me to a post where you got attacked for discussing this matter? I looked, I saw a recent thread by Rader on a related topic .. but did not see anyone (including Nemo) get attacked for it ... perhaps I missed it ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Of course one solution then creates another problem. Facing massive numbers of Japanese defenders as we find in both scen 1 and 2, if the issue is fixed and massive CAP will kill lots of bombers, then the Allied player will just run out of airplanes soon enough. Not to say this does not need lots of work or that it is not welcome but there has to be a complete examination of the factors and a complete rework is needed. Flak needs to work, realistic limits on bases and air attacks, realistic results for combat and so on. It is a bigger problem than just fixing one aspect of air combat. Don't expect a quick fix or at least one that works well.

Triple Bingo for you ... sounds like you've dug into the code and worked on this already ... as this is how those of us who have feel !!!
Most "simple fixes" lead to more unintended consequences ... and so on ... much care is needed ... as I said ... we were already trying to fix "massive CAP will kill lots of bombers ... so the above link ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 455
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/7/2012 6:06:32 AM   
AcePylut


Posts: 812
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
The fix really is really in the questions that must be asked:

1) Did 2000 fighters all jump 2000 aircraft at once? Did Allied AirGroup1 (24 P51s) on the west side of the formation, in 'reality', have a chance to fly through 2000 attacking Japanese planes and attack Japanese AirGroup1 (24 A6M2) on the other side?

No... Allied AirGroup1 would fight against whatever Japs were on the west side of the formation... i.e. Japanese AirGroup2 (24 A6M7).

The 'fix' is to break up the attacks so you don't have 1 massive 2000 plane raid, but instead, a bunch of separate combats. That's really what would have happened. Many of the groups involved in CAP, Sweep, Escort, would never see some of the enemy airgroups in a battle this size.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 456
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/7/2012 4:17:23 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7182
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

First I want to apologize to Radar if he feels we are hi-jacking his AAR ... but he himself seems to be engaged in this multi-page discussion ... so I'll risk a second post ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader
Seriously guys, I am convinced the air to air combat system is a bit screwy, at least for large raids.


I agree ... but I would add ... it always has been this way ...
When we first started the project that became AE ... airbase stacking ... and changing the results curve of the large air battles were key priorities ... but at the same time ... the team agreed that complete re-writes of any major sections of code were "out of scope" and this including the air combat model. We did increase over-stacking penalties to the extent that the intensity of public complaints got one of our playtesters banned!
We also wanted to remove the phenomena where by a certain number of fighers was sufficient to wipe out large numbers of 4EB ... to wit this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=871580
But, we did not chuck the air combat model and start over again ... so there are still edges out there which if crossed will cause problems.
I'm only surprised that people who have played the game for years are surprised to find this out!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
It is a pity that this is the way the model works in the late game but saying that in the technical thread just gets you attacked so I doub it is going to be addressed.

Can you point me to a post where you got attacked for discussing this matter? I looked, I saw a recent thread by Rader on a related topic .. but did not see anyone (including Nemo) get attacked for it ... perhaps I missed it ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Of course one solution then creates another problem. Facing massive numbers of Japanese defenders as we find in both scen 1 and 2, if the issue is fixed and massive CAP will kill lots of bombers, then the Allied player will just run out of airplanes soon enough. Not to say this does not need lots of work or that it is not welcome but there has to be a complete examination of the factors and a complete rework is needed. Flak needs to work, realistic limits on bases and air attacks, realistic results for combat and so on. It is a bigger problem than just fixing one aspect of air combat. Don't expect a quick fix or at least one that works well.

Triple Bingo for you ... sounds like you've dug into the code and worked on this already ... as this is how those of us who have feel !!!
Most "simple fixes" lead to more unintended consequences ... and so on ... much care is needed ... as I said ... we were already trying to fix "massive CAP will kill lots of bombers ... so the above link ...




Thanks for the response. I appreciate that you and others are following the discussion. But I am an old guy and about the only code that I have had any direct experience with is my gym locker from high school. (Am I the only one who still has gym locker nightmares?)


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 457
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/7/2012 5:16:52 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3731
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
I think there's value to AcePylut's suggestion, not sure if it's possible under the code. Also, beware hosing co-ordination to the point that the smaller early to mid war combat doesn't get borked (i.e. Unintended consequences).

@JEWilkerson - thanks for participating in this discussion! Would it be possible to scrap or raise to effectively infinite the limit on attack passes and instead key number of passes to units of time available before the strike arrives at the target?

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 458
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/7/2012 10:11:00 PM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
I agree ... but I would add ... it always has been this way ...
When we first started the project that became AE ... airbase stacking ... and changing the results curve of the large air battles were key priorities ... but at the same time ... the team agreed that complete re-writes of any major sections of code were "out of scope" and this including the air combat model. We did increase over-stacking penalties to the extent that the intensity of public complaints got one of our playtesters banned!
We also wanted to remove the phenomena where by a certain number of fighers was sufficient to wipe out large numbers of 4EB ... to wit this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=871580
But, we did not chuck the air combat model and start over again ... so there are still edges out there which if crossed will cause problems.
I'm only surprised that people who have played the game for years are surprised to find this out!
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Of course one solution then creates another problem. Facing massive numbers of Japanese defenders as we find in both scen 1 and 2, if the issue is fixed and massive CAP will kill lots of bombers, then the Allied player will just run out of airplanes soon enough. Not to say this does not need lots of work or that it is not welcome but there has to be a complete examination of the factors and a complete rework is needed. Flak needs to work, realistic limits on bases and air attacks, realistic results for combat and so on. It is a bigger problem than just fixing one aspect of air combat. Don't expect a quick fix or at least one that works well.

Triple Bingo for you ... sounds like you've dug into the code and worked on this already ... as this is how those of us who have feel !!!
Most "simple fixes" lead to more unintended consequences ... and so on ... much care is needed ... as I said ... we were already trying to fix "massive CAP will kill lots of bombers ... so the above link ...



jw,

Thanks for stopping in, greatly appreciated.

Let me pose this question to you: given your experience and insight: what House Rules would you propose to address this for the time being? How do you play around this?

Assuming that you are able to suggest some HR's, is there any direction for Michael to pursue to mitigate this issue?

Thanks!!

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/7/2012 10:12:17 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 459
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 2:10:17 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3648
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
Just my opinion, but reading the runes I'm really not sure that there is any intention to address this. It's too difficult to do it properly without taking the thing back into Alpha, if you can even apply that status here.

As LoBaron has pointed out, there are "work-arounds" i.e. don't put your entire force in a single hex. Spread out, use the whole map ... Simples.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 460
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 3:36:05 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Just my opinion, but reading the runes I'm really not sure that there is any intention to address this. It's too difficult to do it properly without taking the thing back into Alpha, if you can even apply that status here.

As LoBaron has pointed out, there are "work-arounds" i.e. don't put your entire force in a single hex. Spread out, use the whole map ... Simples.



This may work around the game deficiency in the sense that we'll avoid the failure mode, but it just moves the problem down the stack. Instead of a "massive air battles produce unrealistic results", you instead get "large scale invasions are not practical against a prepared defender".

Historically there were plenty of cases where huge air forces were deployed into very, very narrow airspaces; the allies put 14,000 sorties over Normandy on d-day.

The historical generals did this because things like invasions required massive air and sea support to have a ghost of a chance of success.

So if you don't allow air massing, it disproportionately impacts the player on the late war offensive aka the allies.

This game is already demonstrating that its very, very hard, maybe impossible to launch an allied invasion of mainland Japan against a prepared Japanese player, even *with* massive air support. Can you imagine Greyjoy trying his Honshu invasions with a mere 400 plane CAS wing?

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 461
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 3:59:56 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
Now I really feel like we are hi-jacking ... so continuation of this discussion should move out of this AAR ... (a man's AAR is his "castle" ... or a woman's as well ... )

Many of the recent posts are "banging the horse shoe off the post" ... which means you guys are really close ...

We were facing at least a couple of issues in moving from WITP to AE ...

01 - The "Uber CAP" effect.

02 - The base "over stacking" capability.

101 - We did "break up the attacks" ... I think in part this was because Ian felt it was more realistic ... and more practically I think it was one of the steps taken to reduce the "Uber CAP" effect. But there were trade-offs ... reducing the number of shots per fighter ... over-balanced in favor of the bombers ... so breaking of the attacks also mitigated that.

102 - We did attempt to dramatically reduce overstacking. But this met with howls of disapproval from some playtesters. I think overstacking is still harder in AE than it was in WITP, but probably not as hard as it should be.

201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.

201.2 - Only allow 50 planes per airbase level.
This is a tough rule to enforce as each player is "on his own" to enforce. We use this in my current games, but I would say it is the most "abused" or "overlooked" rule, because it is tough to remember. But it is still a good goal and I think the intent of both the WITP and AE design. We just haven't been able to figure out how to make it work!

201.3 - Modders can drastically reduce the aviation support in their scenarios.
See Nik's May'42 start. Nik has been an advocate of this solution for years. It does help. The Allies should get 1 or 2 big Aviation units in late '43 to support the B-29s.

201.4 Expectation Re-set.
I do not think either the WITP Team or the AE Team attempted to write the game to handle Europe sized air battles (or beyond) ... if your game routinely strays into this "outside the edge" space ... then you should expect the results to be "outside the edge".

301 - Can the AE Team ... Will the AE Team fix this?
We will discuss it ... but the risks of making the changes suggested (several of which we have either already done or we have discussed) are huge. The probability of one change produced two or more unintended consequences is high.
But we will discuss options.


... ok ... I would suggest someone start a thread ... either in tech support or war room to continue the discussion ... so we can leave this AAR in peace ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 462
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 4:11:03 AM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Oh, feel free to discuss this here The only reason I see to move the discussion is so GJ can participate and so others are more likely to see it (or less likely if they don't want to...) ~ which are good reasons of course

We are going to continue, but we are taking a break this week as I am super busy with work and GJ has some other priorities at the moment too. We are sort of discussing HRs, and had a good long skype conversation on the weekend.

Even though we may sometimes complain, I think it's clear that the reason why these small issues stand out so much is because the game itself is spectacularly well done. Thanks to all the developers for their outstanding effort and dedication. You guys rock

< Message edited by rader -- 2/8/2012 4:14:05 AM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 463
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 4:26:08 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader
... <snip> ... We are sort of discussing HRs ... <snip> ...


I wonder what sort of HR will bring back all those carriers!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 464
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 10:00:47 AM   
PaxMondo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.


jw,

Thanks much for sharing your HR's. I can see how they work/help. Can you elaborate a bit on this one? I want to be sure I have this correct. So, you mean that B-17's can only have one group at a base, thus lowering the density of the 4E's? And this rule can only be broken by the late game B-29's when they start to historically stack in the Mariana's for long range attacks on the Home Islands?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 465
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 2:22:21 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 812
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

301 - Can the AE Team ... Will the AE Team fix this?
We will discuss it ... but the risks of making the changes suggested (several of which we have either already done or we have discussed) are huge. The probability of one change produced two or more unintended consequences is high.
But we will discuss options.




What about this idea: Scaling the # of cap passes based on raid/escort size?

I.e. there’s been talk that CAP will only make 200 firing passes. I like that for the smaller air battles… but what about making it a scalar? I.e. If the strike and CAP totals are less than X number of planes, max passes is 200. If the strike and CAP totals are between X and Y, then it’s more passes (300)… if it’s between Y and Z, more passes (400), and so on…


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 466
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 3:25:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.


jw,

Thanks much for sharing your HR's. I can see how they work/help. Can you elaborate a bit on this one? I want to be sure I have this correct. So, you mean that B-17's can only have one group at a base, thus lowering the density of the 4E's? And this rule can only be broken by the late game B-29's when they start to historically stack in the Mariana's for long range attacks on the Home Islands?


I think he means 'group' in the army administrative sense. Not a 12-plane squadron (depending on the time period). IIRC a group was about usually 4 squadrons.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 467
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/8/2012 7:21:03 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think he means 'group' in the army administrative sense. Not a 12-plane squadron (depending on the time period). IIRC a group was about usually 4 squadrons.

You think correctly! I mean "group" in the technical sense.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 468
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/9/2012 2:55:18 AM   
PaxMondo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think he means 'group' in the army administrative sense. Not a 12-plane squadron (depending on the time period). IIRC a group was about usually 4 squadrons.

You think correctly! I mean "group" in the technical sense.

Thanks for confirming/clarifying ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 469
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/10/2012 1:47:43 AM   
TheLoneGunman


Posts: 311
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
Guys, Rader and GJ are playing the game that they want to play. Not the one that we want them to play.

They've been nothing but friendly and cordial to each other and Rader has most certainly not put a gun to GJ's head at any point or time during this campaign to make him go along with anything he didn't want to go along with.

You may not agree with the HRs that they established, and GJ may have initially bitten off a bit more than he could chew at first, but they're not our HRs, they belong only to Rader and GJ.

Both have been more than willing to work with each other to keep this game going and to keep it fun for them, so let's not trash either of them please, especially not in either of their respective AARs.
Post #: 470
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/10/2012 4:16:57 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7182
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Troika,

You joined forum today, apparently read both AARs in your spare time and then set a record for quickest troll. Pretty impressive to me. Wonder who the hell you are?


Whoa....! That guy's post was gone before I could get my post typed.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 2/10/2012 4:23:45 AM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to TheLoneGunman)
Post #: 471
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/10/2012 4:36:53 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5180
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Troika,

You joined forum today, apparently read both AARs in your spare time and then set a record for quickest troll. Pretty impressive to me. Wonder who the hell you are?


Whoa....! That guy's post was gone before I could get my post typed.

You can read the AAR's as a Guest, but I'm always dissapointed when I miss these posts!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 472
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/10/2012 5:31:19 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18173
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Troika,

You joined forum today, apparently read both AARs in your spare time and then set a record for quickest troll. Pretty impressive to me. Wonder who the hell you are?


Whoa....! That guy's post was gone before I could get my post typed.

Hmmm...me thinks JWilkerson was fast on the draw on this one's origin *COUGH* Helmut *COUGH*. Nice catch, JWilkerson!

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 473
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/11/2012 11:54:31 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
PaxMondo,

You faith in the goodness of human nature is refreshing but I fear misplaced. I believe 3 forum members ( including myself ) were the first to raise this. When we did personal attacks were made by people against myself ( and at least Rader also ) stating that we were whiny and this wasn't a bug etc etc etc that we didn't know anything about what we were talking about and we should leave this to the experts --- who hadn't spotted this bug. Now some of those same people have self-nominated themselves to be the "appropriate" people to look into this.

I think its a testament to optimism that you think those same people who showed themselves to be closed-minded when this was initially raised are going to be open-minded and take into account possible solutions coming from elsewhere. Sadly I've had dealing with them before and they suffer from a HUGE amount of "Not Invented Here Syndrome". I'm much more cynical and rely on past experience with some of these people over similar issues where bugs were identified, they attacked the people reporting the bugs, engaged in character slurring and then, later, when the issue raised WAS identified as a bug and fixed by michaelm were notable by their silence.

Obviously I don't include michaelm or jwilkerson as part of this cotterie but, personally, I'm less than hopeful that the best solution will be identified due to NIHS.

In the end though I hope you are right and my past experience proves wrong. If the air team do the fixing then I'd be confident we'll get a good solution but it seems the people who have appointed themselves to look into this aren't quite the air team and if that's so then I'd have significantly less confidence.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 2/11/2012 12:02:05 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 474
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/12/2012 2:53:19 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2619
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
I would agree with your assessment Nemo. But I would also say that this is the human condition so well explored by Everett Rogers and how we look at new ideas and perspectives. I might propose the distribution of comments follows the distribution proposed by ER ...

I mentioned this before .. but I would propose the following that might provide better game play while "fixing" the problem:

1) Use a circles of apollonius intercept algorithum. Bascally for each group within range of intercept (not just the CAP at the target) calculate a solution that will be where, and how much fuel left to fight. Thus a battle could very well be a series of intercepts. I just do not see forces in between intercepting raids, but I could be wrong here ... I could picture in a huge raid vs. a huge CAP maybe going after escorts running them out of fuel and ammo in dog fights with a final desperate gamble of going after the escorted bombers ...

2) Have a decision for intercept escorts vs. vector to bombers. Given the above-- the defense can plan how many resources devoted to dealing with the escorts and how many should try and go straight for the bombers. Give the "tight" escorts a free shot at those going for the bombers.

3) Use altitudes better to determine tightness around the bombers. a fighter formation within 1000 feet of the bombers is a formation that simply soaks off attacks at a disadvantage like today but adding the feature of nailing interceptors going straight for the bombers. Then it is quite possible to fly formations > 1000 feet higher meant to defend against the interceptors trying to peel off escorts while having the disadvantage of not protecting the bombers as well against determined interecption.

This sort of detaill is not needed for a small raid but certainly is in the decision matrix for a large land based raid. Esepcally Scenario #2 OOB's ...Now we have a decision matrix of allocating resources to protect bombers vs. escort atrrition -- balancing the need to disrupt the raid with interceptor losses . Then add raid coordination die rolls, and we have the randomness to prevent the 200 escorts 200 bombers from penatrating CAP with assurity.

I think this worked very well in AH Luftwaffee with the circles of apollonius being worked out by the player .. the allocation decisions between intercept escorts or go striaght for the bombers and take your lumps was also interesting because games are about decisions and maximizing the probability of success given multiple factors, the opponets decision cycle ... and of course the randomness of fate as a die roll ...

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 475
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 2/12/2012 9:38:18 PM   
PaxMondo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

PaxMondo,

You faith in the goodness of human nature is refreshing but I fear misplaced. ... In the end though I hope you are right and my past experience proves wrong.


In the general spirit of fun and "glass half fullness", I propose a bet. If we get a good resolution "we win". If we don't, "we lose". Stakes: un cafe + croissant (or equivalent pastry). I hope to be in France/Belguim/Italy in the summer of 2015, so we can settle up then at a location to be agreed upon. Ok?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 476
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]
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

0.156