Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/27/2011 8:14:44 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
The duration of the interception is a factor of the time of detection, the planes available to intercept and their time to intercept.
Not all planes will participate in combat or will it be a slogging match to 'the last man standing' as in WITP.

If the CAP can 'overcome' the escorts, some CAP can be directed against the bombers rather than engage the CAP ("5 planes vectored on to bombers").


Thanks Micheal,

the problem me and Rader are seeing in our game is that if a big raid gets in coordinated -meaning all the bombers at the same time with a decent escort- (which happens quite a lot of times, especially for the japs) the result is always - and i mean always - a complete defeat for the defender...CAP...even Huge CAP in a level 9 AF, is worthless.
If the same raid goes in unescorted then the CAP becomes effective again.... and it becomes a problem late in the war cause under these conditions the defence of Japan homeland industries becomes almost impossible. At the same time, as i experienced with my CVEs (see above), anything like the Okinawa invasion of RL becomes impossible cause thousands of torpedo bombers will always get through, no matter how much CAP you put above your carriers and your landing TFs....


As a dedicated long term player I can confirm that some '44 A2A battles consisting of many CAPing fighters battles just seem kind of weird. I reported some time ago an excessive industry damage that simply cannot be defended. Examples like those:

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
A week ago similar number of navy bombers (supposed not trained in land bombing too much) attacked Soerabaja (again thunderstorms):
Morning Air attack on Soerabaja , at 56,104

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 31
J2M3 Jack x 27
N1K1-J George x 14
N1K2-J George x 17
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 34

Allied aircraft
F4U-1A Corsair x 10
F6F-3 Hellcat x 190
SBD-5 Dauntless x 156
TBM-1C Avenger x 113

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-5 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged
SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBM-1C Avenger: 2 damaged

Oil hits 24
Fires 644




...with almost no interaction from Japanese fighters are numerous. This one below is from the latest PBEM game:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Singora at 50,71

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 298

Allied aircraft
PBY-5A Catalina x 14


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5A Catalina: 7 damaged
PBY-5A Catalina: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CVL Nisshin
CV Kaga, Torpedo hits 1
BB Nagato



Aircraft Attacking:
13 x PBY-5A Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M5b Zero (1 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Taiho-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Shinano-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 13 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Amagi-1 with A6M5b Zero (2 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Katsuragi-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 47 minutes
Nisshin-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Mizuho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes
Chiyoda-1 with A6M5b Zero (2 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Kaiyo-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes


[a save file can be fetched at will]

No previous & no later raid. No packets. (Sorry LoBaron ) Radar present. Almost 300 fighters on CAP. Good detection. Interception time shorter than ETT (47 minutes). And yet... no fighter shot a bullet at those Catalinas!
Maybe we -- old time WITP players accustomed to that old days bloody A2As duels -- are somehow biased towards the current AE model, but my logic says the examples given by many players give credit to introduce some changes...

Last time I wondered if there shouldn't be a special code trigger causing the (Japanese?) fighters fight more aggressively against an enemy trying to get the crucial resources (like CVs or industry?)... Maybe that change would improve the overall "feel" without spoiling the whole air model system...

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 31
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/27/2011 9:04:37 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
First battle:
CAP vs. escort fighters roughly 1:2
About 270 bombers
Oil hits 24
Fires 644

What is the issue?


Second battle:
Quite a lot of standby fighters you got there (wonder why).
This, plus airborne CAP at 29k when the cats apporach 19k lower, plus a lucky diceroll and you eat a torp.
Maybe lucky but nothing surprizing considering they are usually ok with torps.

And re: packets: theres a lot of difference between a large scale battle and a small raid, but I guess you know that.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 12/27/2011 9:09:13 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 32
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/27/2011 9:58:18 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What is the issue?

Second battle:
Quite a lot of standby fighters you got there (wonder why).
This, plus airborne CAP at 29k when the cats apporach 19k lower, plus a lucky diceroll and you eat a torp.
Maybe lucky but nothing surprizing considering they are usually ok with torps.


LoBaron, the issue here in Rader's thread is the low number of really intercepting fighters of CAP that seems mighty.
It's not only he that sees it over and over again IRL PBEMs. I agree with him that there's something weird in his results giving my own examples.

That Soerabaja example was copied from some other thread and is an example where 120 fighters intercept a giant 500-planes raid and only 5 or 6 of them actually shoot at enemy while they should fight to the death over critical resources.

In the Catalina's example there was no A2A combat. I repeat: not a single fighter out of 300 intercepted this incoming attack although the detection range and all times to target & interception times -- all were enough (50% CAP) -- and indicated the Catalinas should get shred to pieces (while some were damaged and destroyed by flak only). This example was to counter your arguments about that what we see as several combat animations of smaller packages (a single huge animation or smaller "cuts") etc.

So while I agree there's actually no chance of a change in the whole A2A combat model, maybe introduction of special triggers to prolong the battle if they too place over critical targets can be possible...

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 33
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/27/2011 11:00:02 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14496
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What is the issue?

Second battle:
Quite a lot of standby fighters you got there (wonder why).
This, plus airborne CAP at 29k when the cats apporach 19k lower, plus a lucky diceroll and you eat a torp.
Maybe lucky but nothing surprizing considering they are usually ok with torps.


LoBaron, the issue here in Rader's thread is the low number of really intercepting fighters of CAP that seems mighty.
It's not only he that sees it over and over again IRL PBEMs. I agree with him that there's something weird in his results giving my own examples.

That Soerabaja example was copied from some other thread and is an example where 120 fighters intercept a giant 500-planes raid and only 5 or 6 of them actually shoot at enemy while they should fight to the death over critical resources.

In the Catalina's example there was no A2A combat. I repeat: not a single fighter out of 300 intercepted this incoming attack although the detection range and all times to target & interception times -- all were enough (50% CAP) -- and indicated the Catalinas should get shred to pieces (while some were damaged and destroyed by flak only). This example was to counter your arguments about that what we see as several combat animations of smaller packages (a single huge animation or smaller "cuts") etc.

So while I agree there's actually no chance of a change in the whole A2A combat model, maybe introduction of special triggers to prolong the battle if they too place over critical targets can be possible...


Responding to your bolded statements: that kind of thing happened in real life, and it happened to the USN! Notice that the weather was "moderate rain". It seems quite plausible that a raid could slip in, especially a small one like that.

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 34
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 7:34:55 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What is the issue?

Second battle:
Quite a lot of standby fighters you got there (wonder why).
This, plus airborne CAP at 29k when the cats apporach 19k lower, plus a lucky diceroll and you eat a torp.
Maybe lucky but nothing surprizing considering they are usually ok with torps.


LoBaron, the issue here in Rader's thread is the low number of really intercepting fighters of CAP that seems mighty.
It's not only he that sees it over and over again IRL PBEMs. I agree with him that there's something weird in his results giving my own examples.

That Soerabaja example was copied from some other thread and is an example where 120 fighters intercept a giant 500-planes raid and only 5 or 6 of them actually shoot at enemy while they should fight to the death over critical resources.

In the Catalina's example there was no A2A combat. I repeat: not a single fighter out of 300 intercepted this incoming attack although the detection range and all times to target & interception times -- all were enough (50% CAP) -- and indicated the Catalinas should get shred to pieces (while some were damaged and destroyed by flak only). This example was to counter your arguments about that what we see as several combat animations of smaller packages (a single huge animation or smaller "cuts") etc.

So while I agree there's actually no chance of a change in the whole A2A combat model, maybe introduction of special triggers to prolong the battle if they too place over critical targets can be possible...



viberpol, as witpqs mentioned, these things happen. In RL.

If it wasn´t for the fact that I see the air combat model´s ability to represent and display real life situations to a nearly extreme accuracy, I would
long ago have stopped "defending" it (as if it needs defending).

If the explanation in my post #32 wasn´t sufficient I apologize, I really assumed what happened was obvious.

Let me retry:

First battle:
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes
CAP vs. escort fighters roughly 1:2
About 270 bombers
Oil hits 24
Fires 644


You are, in all earnesty, asking why there was a problem for the CAP to intercept this strike? If it was for your experience with the
game I´d call that deliberately ignoring information.

You have dice rolls beyond the obvious ones, but the obvious ones already provide you with the worst possible scenario for an intercept.
13 minutes of warning, worst possible weather, still a good coordinated strike that outnumbers the defenders 4:1 in total planes and 2:1
in fighters. If something absolutely miniscule goes wrong in addition I´d expect not a single scratch on my strike. And if I am lucky
even not a single attack on my planes because the reaction time was too short.


Second battle:
Quite a lot of standby fighters you got there (wonder why).
14 planes approaching in moderate rain.
This, plus airborne CAP at 29k when the cats apporach 19k lower, plus a lucky diceroll and you eat a torp.


Again, whats the news? You got an incoming flight, 14 planes only so difficult to intercept in rainy weather, have your fighters airborne at an altitude delta
of 19k compared to the incoming strike, and 80% of your fighters who should fly CAP are on standby.

The only thing that could be criticized is how the game engine handles attacks with planes carrying 2 torps, but that they came through without a scratch until
attack run is nothing astounding.

Rader´s and GreyJoy´s examples were a bit more difficult to read, but I tried to explain the mechanics behind the different results in post #30.

viberpol, no offense, but I need 10 seconds to analyse why your examples are not showing faults of the game engine, but are battle setups that were bound
to end in exactly the realistic results you witnessed. Posting them as examples for an issue is just plain wrong.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 12/28/2011 8:51:41 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 35
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 9:49:22 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9049
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I can increase the number of combat rounds when there is a large number of fighters in CAP.

This increases the dogfights without making a lopsided change.

Here is updated EXE.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 12/28/2011 9:52:11 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 36
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 9:59:13 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Michael, just out of interest, would this increase combat rounds with short detection
ranges as well?

If I understand this correctly, the ammount of combat rounds is a factor of detection range
and # and attributes of a/c involved. So basically you are increasing the cap on maximum combat rounds possible?

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 37
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 12:50:07 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron -- The Defender of the Air Model
viberpol, as witpqs mentioned, these things happen. In RL.
The only thing that could be criticized is how the game engine handles attacks with planes carrying 2 torps, but that they came through without a scratch until attack run is nothing astounding.
viberpol, no offense, but I need 10 seconds to analyse why your examples are not showing faults of the game engine, but are battle setups that were bound to end in exactly the realistic results you witnessed. Posting them as examples for an issue is just plain wrong.


LoBaron, no offence taken.
I forgot that the squadron of Catalinas are jus as swift, as fast and as tiny is size that they cannot be tracked on radar (even if they've got a 47 minutes early warning and descending from 29 k to 19k takes.. hmm... 10 minutes?) and behaved just as the Dauntlesses at Midway... Ah, and after the attack they are all able to disappear in clouds without even a single contact with 300 defending fighters... It's not a single squadron, a packet from a bigger battle just overlooked by the defending CAP busy with other raids from different directions...

I am not a native English user so I can have problems communicating clearly what’s boiling in my head… but I am sure I wasn’t asking for your interpretation of the CR. As a long time WITP/AE fan I have the right to speak about my experiences and I am here support Rader’s opinion…

Maybe my examples given above are not well chosen but I can easily present dozens similar to Rader’s. This is just a signal for Devs that maybe (just maybe) there’s something wrong with the code. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's The place. The Tech part of the Forum.

Maybe that’s the bad weather impact on CAP that does not impact the general effectiveness of a raid the same way not limiting the bombing accuracy… I don’t know. But what we know is that sometimes in AE both sides suffer from CAP ineffectiveness. All experienced PBEM players know that. Play a bit longer. Read the AARs. Stop "defending " the model because we're not attacking it. No matter what, we all love AE. Just commenting on it for the sake of higher playability.


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123
quote:

Think there's something wrong in the system

It's the result of a design over-reaction to a perceived problem with CAP in the original WitP - CAP didn't "leak enough" to satisfy the folks who redesigned WitP into AE, so they overcompensated and now CAP leaks to the point of being a joke.
And don't listen to all of the apologists who make up imaginary scenarios to "explain away" the current really, REALLY bad design of CAP in AE.

Sounds quite right.... however the strange fact is that it seems to me that "sometimes" even the big raid gets butchered (see my previous disaster at Tokyo where i lost 460 planes!!!) but most of the times, when the raid goes in "coordinated" the CAP really seems to do a bad job...
Whenever the raid gets uncoordinated CAP does wonders....when it gets coordinated escort does wonders... there must be a good point in the middle of these two extremes imho...
If this is true...and it's WAD... i think Rader has no chance of having a a/c production at all by 1945... and i, on the opposite, have no chance of land anywhere in Japan...imagine what another coordinated japanese raid could do to my ships if i get close to the coast of japan....

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
The air battles are becoming an issue...both our CAPs are harmless against big strikes...it's a problem....but untill remains a balanced problem (so affecting the both of us) i can live with it.
However i think the Devs should take a look at those saves....Rader sent to Michealm the latest save containing the last air battle...we both think there's something "borked" in the code about this kind of battles....



< Message edited by viberpol -- 12/28/2011 1:00:57 PM >


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 38
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 1:01:42 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
viberpol, sorry I did not want to sound harsh.

I find this discussion interesting in general, although I am for sure on the "leave it as
it is" faction.

As for the Catalina example: Yes, with the weather situation I imagine exactly this: small attack formations
ducking in and out of clouds and so pretty tough to intercept even when the rest of the variables look good.

But they don´t. I don´t know why you got such an extreme number of standby fighters, for this there is simply
not enough data available. From the combat report it looks very much like you had a prevous engagement or
something similar that required a lot of fighters. You got no scrambling fighters, you got a few being recalled
or out of immediate contact, so the number of fighters at once available to intercept would be rather about
10-15 than 300.

I cannot tell you what happened that lead to this situation obviousely.



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 39
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 1:09:46 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9049
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Michael, just out of interest, would this increase combat rounds with short detection
ranges as well?

If I understand this correctly, the amount of combat rounds is a factor of detection range
and # and attributes of a/c involved. So basically you are increasing the cap on maximum combat rounds possible?


Only if the CAP is large. And a larger initial rounds due to the higher 'cap', would then be lowered if detection range is low.

And a higher 'cap' to the rounds wont necessarily mean a bloodier battle, as it still needs dice rolls for plane detection, interception, attack, defend, etc.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 12/28/2011 1:12:04 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 40
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 1:17:33 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Thanks Michael.

Wonder if GJ and rader give this one a go. They are in the best possible position to test
the differences to the current limit.

I expect their battles to become a lot more bloody, personally I am not sure if this would
reflect reality better.

Large air battles as long as both sides where about equal in numbers usually had two repeatable
tendencies:
A "low" percentage of losses compared to total a/c involved
The bombers always get through

This was where the old WitP lacked severely and which was adressed in a great fashion in AE.
I look forward to the test results.


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 41
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 1:57:49 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thanks Michael.

Wonder if GJ and rader give this one a go. They are in the best possible position to test
the differences to the current limit.

I expect their battles to become a lot more bloody, personally I am not sure if this would
reflect reality better.

Large air battles as long as both sides where about equal in numbers usually had two repeatable
tendencies:
A "low" percentage of losses compared to total a/c involved
The bombers always get through

This was where the old WitP lacked severely and which was adressed in a great fashion in AE.
I look forward to the test results.





I do agree to some point, but not in general. How could I. I absolutely agree when you say loss % was low compared to total numbers involved when you look at the airwar 44-45 in Europe. I don´t agree at all when you look at Japanese strikes of 44-45 against Allied carrier TFs. Loss rates of 50% up to total annihilation of all strike aircraft were not that uncommon (coupled with flak of course). I do agree about bombers always getting through when you talk about massed 4E raids but not when 100 IJ med bombers escorted by 200 fighters meet 1500 available carrier based fighters, the strike is detected 120 miles away, no other strikes were going on, it´s clear sky and all the fighters are available for Cap and then you see only 20 escorts and 3 bombers are shot down, followed by 97 torp bombers achieving a 50% hit rate on Allied modern BB and CV with flak managing to take down another whopping 5 or 6 bombers when you have an accumulated flak value of 87.000 in that hex. I would even expect some bombers getting into strike range in the end, the question is how many. When it´s one of those flawed Cap results, then there may be 90%+ getting through, when perhaps only 9% would be realistic no matter what.

THAT is where the model obviously has a problem and like viberpool already said, every experienced PBEM player that has played it all the way to mid 45 has either experienced this himself (over TFs or bases) or has seen more than enough examples in all the AARs around.

I am not asking for the WITP model when 300 Hellcats chewed up each and every aircraft of the 1200 attacking but a Cap of over 1000 available fighters more or less totally ignoring a strike of 300 enemy ac with only two dozen attackers shot down which then annihilate a whole CV TF with an insane hit rate (other not related problem) with no reasonable flak effect (another not related problem) isn´t an insanely great result either. Basically the "all is whiped out by Cap" model has been replaced by the "all floating is whiped out by unlimited available attackers" model when we talk about 45. So the frustrated WITP IJ player in 45 was replaced by the AE Allied player of 45 with the difference that the IJ player was able to just replace a couple of thousand aircraft and the Allied player not being able to replace a single ship when it comes down to carriers. IMO AE has the far better air model than WITP but as soon as it goes into mid/late 44 with high numbers involved the model got the same big problems as WITP had, it can´t really handle big numbers but that is nothing new. And it starts to become totally flawed during those turns when Cap literally does NOTHING at all due to a flaw or bug (IMO) or due to perfectly modelling of real life examples (in your oppinion).

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/28/2011 2:01:37 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 42
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 2:15:07 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
CT, I see your point, but we´re talking about roughly equal forces (at least GJ/rader do). This wasn´t the case
in RL in 44´ and 45´ in the Pacific.

Comparing RL pac 44´/45´ to an ingame situation where the Japanese player is able to field high skilled experten
with up to date equipment from intact airfields in this very timeframe is not valid. I think were better off when just comparing
fitting engagements from the previous years or from the war in Europe.

Youre right about the difference between HB and DB/TB strikes, but this is where we lack comparision values the most.
Personally, I do not see how a strike containing 400+ a/c which is detected, say, 70nm from target, containing a good
percentage of escorts, and flown by well trained pilots, is stoppable even by a numerical superior CAP. IMHO theres just
not enough time and too many planes to shoot down. But this is admittedly where we go into the realm of guesswork.

For the late war Pacific there simply are not enough comparision values to come to conclusions about equal force battles ingame.

Anyways, I am looking forward how this change affects the outcome of large battles.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 43
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 2:26:28 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
This was where the old WitP lacked severely and which was adressed in a great fashion in AE.
I look forward to the test results.


well, as far as my example is concerned the new exe didn't change anything.

Maybe CAP of 297-298 fighters is not enough to trigger it...
I can even say it's worse, 'cos there were two attacks.
A morning one:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Singora at 50,71

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 298

Allied aircraft
PBY-5A Catalina x 14

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5A Catalina: 7 damaged
PBY-5A Catalina: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CVL Nisshin
CV Kaga, Torpedo hits 1
BB Nagato

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x PBY-5A Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M5b Zero (1 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Taiho-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Shinano-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 13 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Amagi-1 with A6M5b Zero (2 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Katsuragi-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 47 minutes
Nisshin-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Mizuho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes
Chiyoda-1 with A6M5b Zero (2 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
Kaiyo-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes


And an afternoon one This time it's clear weather Lo! The same number of CAP. Same situation. Almost all times to reach interception shorter than ETT. No other raids to defend against. Yet not a single fighter engaged. Not before. Not even after the attack.


Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Singora at 50,71

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 297

Allied aircraft
PBY-5A Catalina x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5A Catalina: 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Torpedo hits 1
BB Kongo

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x PBY-5A Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 6 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
Taiho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
Shinano-1 with A6M5b Zero (3 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
Unryu-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Amagi-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Katsuragi-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
Nisshin-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 38500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
Mizuho-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
Chiyoda-1 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
Kaiyo-1 with A6M5b Zero (1 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes


[EDIT] All my KB fighter daitais set on mission: escort with CAP 50/60% at 29 k range 7.
That second unopposed strike makes it more a rule than an exception, doesn't it?
And it does fit into the whole topic of this thread: "Most of my groups aren't participating in combat". They definitely does not participate...
Uploading the save for Michael to look at if he finds it interesting.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 12/28/2011 3:37:59 PM >


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 44
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 2:30:52 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
I really don´t get it viberpol. What are all your fighters doing on standby?
The problem has nothing to do with the strike size or the max cap for combat rounds.

Its simply that you do not have any planes in the air to intercept. There must be a reason for this.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 45
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 2:36:13 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Are you using stock map , hex 50,71 is jungle/coastal? and therefore recieves a penalty in the reduction of cap by (i think) 50% according to the original manual ,also fom the manual only 1/3rd of cap is flying the rest are rearming / refueling or resting ,the 2/3rd's not flying will scramble if time permits.
not sure if any of the above has changed with beta's ?

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 46
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 2:38:55 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
Are you using stock map , hex 50,71 is jungle/coastal? and therefore recieves a penalty in the reduction of cap by (i think) 50% according to the original manual ,also fom the manual only 1/3rd of cap is flying the rest are rearming / refueling or resting ,the 2/3rd's not flying will scramble if time permits.
not sure if any of the above has changed with beta's ?


Coastal hex has nothing to do with it.
It's been proven many times that only a base hex brings operational limits to Air TFs.
Running the save with the latest betas but I think if the trigger for coastal has been included again by mistake there would be much less fighters on CAP itself & it would not be seen in limiting the interception.

< Message edited by viberpol -- 12/28/2011 8:16:39 PM >


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 47
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 5:59:24 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can increase the number of combat rounds when there is a large number of fighters in CAP.

This increases the dogfights without making a lopsided change.

Here is updated EXE.


Michael, this is not a good idea. I thought your function was to fix bugs, but this is not a bug, this is an opinion, and one with no basis in game reality. Chasing after uninformed but loudly expressed opinions by less than 1% of the actual playing community, has already moved the game to the margins of un-playability. This takes it one more step towards instability. Please talk to John and Don before making any more changes to the calculation algorithms.

Thank you, Matt

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 48
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 7:31:47 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Matt, while I strongly agree with you, and would also oppose an untested implementation into a beta patch, please consider the following:

Michael for sure has reasons to post the modified exe in here, and not simply to include it in a beta patch.

- It gives those who are interested a modification to test. If there are enough testers interested who are capable of interpreting the data correctly,
this could produce results which can be compared to the current combat round cap, and so makes hard data available for further discussion.
I see this as a benefit.

- This benefit also applies to results hinting that this implementation is not neccesary - or produces unrealistic results - as the same data can
be used to argue why to model should be left as is. I tend to believe this will be the most likely outcome, but you never know.

In addition to the above it is a hint on how easy it is to modify these values (at least by Michael´s standards), which tells a story on its own. The discussion
is so old (I always thought unnessary) that - considering changes could be made this fast - it supports my impression that it was a concious decision not to
change the cap based on just these old discussions.

I might be wrong in this impression, but to me it looks like a good way to satisfy both ends for the time being.



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 49
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 7:56:35 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can increase the number of combat rounds when there is a large number of fighters in CAP.

This increases the dogfights without making a lopsided change.

Here is updated EXE.


Michael, this is not a good idea. I thought your function was to fix bugs, but this is not a bug, this is an opinion, and one with no basis in game reality. Chasing after uninformed but loudly expressed opinions by less than 1% of the actual playing community, has already moved the game to the margins of un-playability. This takes it one more step towards instability. Please talk to John and Don before making any more changes to the calculation algorithms.

Thank you, Matt


I won't go quite as far as US87891 as to claim that the game has already moved to the margins of un-playability and instability but the sentiment expressed by US87891 is one I fully concur with. This is exactly the same type of problem highlighted by Bullwinkle earlier this month.

With the greatest respect to the splendid work michaelm has continued to produce to squash bugs and introduce improvements to the GUI, he has been regularly asked by a very vocal minority with a quite biased agenda which is often not consistent with the game design to introduce fundamental game design changes. The responsibility for approving the game design rested with the overall AE project manager, jwilkerson who in turn delegated much of this task to the various module team leaders such as

theElf (Air Team)
JWE (Naval Team)
Andy Mac (Land Team)

Maybe michaelm has cleared all the changes to the game design through the various team leaders, but I have seen no evidence that that has actually transpired. It is most unfair to place upon the shoulders of michaelm responsibility for these design changes when the key decisions were made by others and any subsequent change without their approval risks destabilising the overall design.

Therefore as this latest cry for special treatment fundamentally involves the air module, absolutely no change should be contemplated without the prior approval of both theElf and jwilkerson.

I will also put on the public record that I take a very dim view of the arrogance which has been displayed by the constant refrain made that experienced PBEM players all suffer from this so called problem. If there really is a problem, then any AE player, whether they play PBEM or against the AI, would similarly be affected by this so called problem. That it is PBEM players who lead the charge, as usual only when their own play is inconvenienced but never when they benefit from a perceived game design problem which they are able to exploit, is strong prima facie evidence that the so called problem arises only from their own play and is therefore fundamentally not a game design problem.

Alfred

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 50
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 8:00:19 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6075
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 213
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 90
     Ki-49-IIb Helen x 47
     Ki-84a Frank x 102



Allied aircraft
     Spitfire VIII x 16
     Thunderbolt I x 9
     P-38J Lightning x 41
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 112
     P-51B Mustang x 48
     F4U-1A Corsair x 71
     F6F-3 Hellcat x 97


Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 2 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 17 destroyed, 7 damaged
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 9 destroyed, 4 damaged
     Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     Spitfire VIII: 1 destroyed on ground
     P-38J Lightning: 38 damaged
     P-38J Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 damaged
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 destroyed on ground
     P-51B Mustang: 4 damaged
     P-51B Mustang: 1 destroyed on ground
     F4U-1A Corsair: 9 damaged
     F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed on ground
     B-24J Liberator: 11 destroyed on ground
     Beaufighter VIf: 3 destroyed on ground
     B-29-1 Superfort: 8 destroyed on ground
     PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground
     Liberator B.VI: 3 destroyed on ground
     P-70A-1 Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
     TBM-1C Avenger: 1 destroyed on ground
     P-61A Black Widow: 2 destroyed on ground
     OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed on ground
     F-5A Lightning: 1 destroyed on ground


Allied ground losses:
     11 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 45
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is our latest turn....what i do feel is that these results weren't normal in our game prior 1944....at Karachi we had several battles of this weight but in none of those the cap was so...."light".....

But at the same time i know i don't have enough experience to make a statistic....but there's something strange....that's for sure

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 51
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/28/2011 10:15:36 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
That it is PBEM players who lead the charge, as usual only when their own play is inconvenienced but never when they benefit from a perceived game design problem which they are able to exploit, is strong prima facie evidence that the so called problem arises only from their own play and is therefore fundamentally not a game design problem.

Alfred


Alfred, spot on as always, though you might underestimate the high respect from many PBEM players, myself included, for the raw knowledge and
experience on game mechanics that AI players like you, TheMoose or PaxMondo gathered, a feat that is close to impossible to reach by playing PBEM only.
There is rarely a post by you where I do not learn something new.

The quoted part reminds me of someone´s sig line...

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 52
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 7:52:46 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

That it is PBEM players who lead the charge, as usual only when their own play is inconvenienced but never when they benefit from a perceived game design problem which they are able to exploit, is strong prima facie evidence that the so called problem arises only from their own play and is therefore fundamentally not a game design problem.

Alfred



you can't be serious.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 53
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 7:54:55 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
GreyJoy, I quote this from your post in your AAR as it is related to this discussion and the combat reports
you posted in here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
I've seen on the dedicated thread that many people thinks that the the CAP system as it is modelled right now works perfectly. I don't know what to say...i don't clearly have the experience to argue about that...i just feel that something has changed along the way...our air battles, no matter what, seems to become the less bloody every day...I remember once, over Karachi, we had days where 300 Tojos swept against 500 P-40/Hurricanes and we had at least 50/60 losses on both sides...now fighters seem to avoid each other... but maybe is just a feeling...


Just a few hints:

- be aware you are comparing sweeps to escorted heavy bomber raids (Tojo sweeps on Karachi vs. escorted bombing runs on mainland Japan)
- be aware you are comparing a single target enviroment(Karachi) to a multi-target enviroment (mainland Japan)
- accept there is a difference between the plane types 2 years ago compared to what you both are using now (e.g. durability, armor,...)
- watch for differences in both of your pilot quality and training (e.g. higher def skill -> lower loss rates)
- watch out for all the other variables with the potential to influence combat results

Your feeling may be right, the battles are less bloody compared to the early days, but don´t let this draw you to the
wrong conclusions.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 54
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 8:04:20 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
when people post examples of 400 fighters on Cap with a pre warning time of 37 min and only halve a dozen of the 350 incoming fighters are shot down then I wonder if ppl are too stubborn to notice something or they are plain and easy not able to do so.

but hey, thank god it's only a vocal minority (a PBEM minority) that goes wild on these silly results (of which there are probably hundreds in the AAR section already) and without this vocal minority we would still be stuck at the stage two years ago with land based radar not working, search archs not working, training not working correctly, pre Cap flak being stupidly wrong and so on. And still, also then were people thinking and insisting everything would be so perfectly fine.

Either it is a bug in the routine (I hope so), the routine just can't handle anything above 300 aircraft or the routine has some other serious problem but if ppl keep saying there is nothing wrong with such results then they just got no clue, simple put. Or hey, of course it could be it is working perfectly well and then all the other A2A results must be borked.

And hey, I do not care if it´s a Japanese or Allied strike that totally ignores hundreds of fighters on Cap, I just do not care which side benefits from it as it is totally side unrelated and can hit both sides in the arse. I applaud grejoy for posting this stuff here, as all the flak for doing so is just common.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/29/2011 8:08:14 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 55
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 8:09:07 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

GreyJoy, I quote this from your post in your AAR as it is related to this discussion and the combat reports
you posted in here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
I've seen on the dedicated thread that many people thinks that the the CAP system as it is modelled right now works perfectly. I don't know what to say...i don't clearly have the experience to argue about that...i just feel that something has changed along the way...our air battles, no matter what, seems to become the less bloody every day...I remember once, over Karachi, we had days where 300 Tojos swept against 500 P-40/Hurricanes and we had at least 50/60 losses on both sides...now fighters seem to avoid each other... but maybe is just a feeling...


Just a few hints:

- be aware you are comparing sweeps to escorted heavy bomber raids (Tojo sweeps on Karachi vs. escorted bombing runs on mainland Japan)
- be aware you are comparing a single target enviroment(Karachi) to a multi-target enviroment (mainland Japan)
- accept there is a difference between the plane types 2 years ago compared to what you both are using now (e.g. durability, armor,...)
- watch for differences in both of your pilot quality and training (e.g. higher def skill -> lower loss rates)
- watch out for all the other variables with the potential to influence combat results

Your feeling may be right, the battles are less bloody compared to the early days, but don´t let this draw you to the
wrong conclusions.



and all those "reasons" are thrown out of the window a day later when the same strike suffers 400 ac shot down? Must be funny variables in your world.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 56
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 8:14:09 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4520
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
and all those "reasons" are thrown out of the window a day later when the same strike suffers 400 ac shot down? Must be funny variables in your world.


No CT, read post #30 if you like to learn something about chance in air combat, or don´t, and continue to enlighten us
by expressing extremes over everything you do not understand.

Welcome back, old ranter.


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 57
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 8:20:51 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6075
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

GreyJoy, I quote this from your post in your AAR as it is related to this discussion and the combat reports
you posted in here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
I've seen on the dedicated thread that many people thinks that the the CAP system as it is modelled right now works perfectly. I don't know what to say...i don't clearly have the experience to argue about that...i just feel that something has changed along the way...our air battles, no matter what, seems to become the less bloody every day...I remember once, over Karachi, we had days where 300 Tojos swept against 500 P-40/Hurricanes and we had at least 50/60 losses on both sides...now fighters seem to avoid each other... but maybe is just a feeling...


Just a few hints:

- be aware you are comparing sweeps to escorted heavy bomber raids (Tojo sweeps on Karachi vs. escorted bombing runs on mainland Japan)
- be aware you are comparing a single target enviroment(Karachi) to a multi-target enviroment (mainland Japan)
- accept there is a difference between the plane types 2 years ago compared to what you both are using now (e.g. durability, armor,...)
- watch for differences in both of your pilot quality and training (e.g. higher def skill -> lower loss rates)
- watch out for all the other variables with the potential to influence combat results

Your feeling may be right, the battles are less bloody compared to the early days, but don´t let this draw you to the
wrong conclusions.



Guys, simply put: i don't have the experience nor the acknowledge of game mechanics to be part of this technical discussion. I do know that.

I just "feel" there's something strange in the results me and Rader are seeing on both sides.

I think that a raid composed of 200 escorts and 400 bombers against 400 fighters CAP "should" suffer more losses (at least in terms on escorting fighters) than what we're seeing right now.

But, as i said earlier, mine is just a feeling...and i may be absolutely wrong. So don't take my expressions as a rant of any type please.

Thx

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 58
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 8:26:35 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9049
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I am not changing the 'formula' of the air battles.
Just the maximum number of times/rounds that are run to determine who/what engages in the dogfight.

As far as the designers are concerned, I was the one who originally set the maximum number of rounds in the code, more as a 'guesstimate', based on the factors I mentioned above.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 59
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat - 12/29/2011 8:35:08 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
and all those "reasons" are thrown out of the window a day later when the same strike suffers 400 ac shot down? Must be funny variables in your world.


No CT, read post #30 if you like to learn something about chance in air combat, or don´t, and continue to enlighten us
by expressing extremes over everything you do not understand.

Welcome back, old ranter.




lol mate, going with your logic we could still play with version 1.0 as all those things back then were perfectly working for you. I may have a history of being a vocal a**hole on the forum (guess I have long left being only a ranter) but you then sure have a history of being proven wrong as all those discussions we had somehow turned out to end in an official answer of being a BUG or a FLAW or an EXPLOIT. Even your godlike hero admitted after 12 months that strato sweeps are an exploit (hence something isn't working as perfectly well as you insisted - and probably still insist). All those great tips on how to coordinate? LMAO, not even devs could make it work, I have some funny pm about that. Changing HQs and stuff like that?? Pre Cap flak also worked in your world IIRC. Weren't you also trying to find variables why patrol ac failed to spot something when having search archs set? Just to find out they were patrolling exactly the opposite archs instead of the set ones? Oh, let's not forget land based radar that was also working for you IIRC, it was fun to read how radar works, until the day when the land based radar bug was squashed (is radar now not working in your world?). I am in repeat mode and could continue like that, perhaps I should, as you are in the same all is fine loop too. I'm not sorry to say that our two's history has proven I have been right and you have been wrong but you may try to convice me that you were saying above mentioned things were bugs and I was the one saying it was working perfectly well. So I guess I do understand, understand that you simply don't.

Now the best thing now would be if someone stood up and said that those complaints only led to bugs because the devs were afraid of the vocal PBEM minority and there wasn't even a bug and it was only changed to silence the damned vocal idiots. Could be, would be politics then.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/29/2011 8:38:15 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141