Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike is "a lit bit too much"?

 
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 >> Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike is "a lit bit too much"? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike is ... - 1/26/2012 1:04:27 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Look at the combat result from Greyjoy and Radar's game. Great game so far. But really ruined by the system.

Yeah, yeah I know it's now wise to stick your nose into massive Jap LBA range. But the Allied players have to do this sooner or later.

Leaking cap works really well in early war, but it apparently broke at the later war stage when thousands of planes involved.

And the key issue is not even the leaking cap, but the coordination.
When in the hell did you see either Jap or Allies can deliver a 600+ planes COORDINATED strike in any time of the war? In Pearl harbor Japs delivered 2 wave of 108 planes in each wave with their best Pilots ever. And I can't image they can do this at the later war stage with less capable pilots.

The same things applies to Allies too. The coordination just group too many planes together no matter the plane type, speed, etc...

And any time this kind of coordination shows up it means a total demolition or either Jap/Allies carrier fleet. Which is also very unlikely happened in the real life.

And hereby I call for a major modification of the air combat model for the middle to late stage of war. Otherwise I may have to give up this game.

Please leave your opinions below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
A6M3a Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 48
A6M5b Zero x 15
A6M5c Zero x 142
A7M2 Sam x 33
B7A2 Grace x 235
D4Y4 Judy x 34
J2M3 Jack x 48
N1K1-J George x 81
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 21



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 129
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 555


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 3 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
B7A2 Grace: 15 destroyed, 32 damaged
B7A2 Grace: 17 destroyed by flak
D4Y4 Judy: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged
D4Y4 Judy: 4 destroyed by flak
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Hancock, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
CV Ticonderoga, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CV Yorktown II, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Illustrious, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
CV Essex, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CV Wasp II, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CLAA San Diego, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Lang
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 1
DD Preston II
DD Arunta


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B6N2 Jill x 66
J2M3 Jack x 22
N1K1-J George x 5



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 127
F6F-3 Hellcat x 71
F6F-5 Hellcat x 547


Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 36 destroyed, 4 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed by flak
J2M3 Jack: 3 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Wasp II, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Yorktown II, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Illustrious, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Duncan
DD Lang
CV Wasp, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 1,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 38 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 10
Ki-83 x 1
Ki-84a Frank x 37
Ki-84r Frank x 75
Ki-100-I Tony x 29



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 328
F4U-1D Corsair x 127
F6F-3 Hellcat x 69
F6F-5 Hellcat x 531


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 6 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 4 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 5 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
DD Warramunga

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 38 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 6
Ki-84a Frank x 29



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 328
F4U-1D Corsair x 126
F6F-3 Hellcat x 63
F6F-5 Hellcat x 518


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 4 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Chicago II
CV Illustrious, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Arunta
CV Saratoga, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 114,56

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 38
A6M5 Zero x 38
A6M5c Zero x 48
B6N2 Jill x 33
G4M1 Betty x 40
G4M3a Betty x 18
N1K1-J George x 47
P1Y1 Frances x 18



Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt I x 15
P-38L Lightning x 101
F6F-3 Hellcat x 280


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 7 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 13 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 7 destroyed, 12 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed by flak
G4M1 Betty: 15 destroyed, 6 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M3a Betty: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
N1K1-J George: 14 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 4 destroyed, 5 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CL Newfoundland
DD Walker
BB Mississippi
CL Birmingham
DD Halligan
CL Santa Fe
DD Witte de With
APD Bulmer
DD Relentless
APD Barr
CL Biloxi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 114,56

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
A6M5c Zero x 27
D4Y4 Judy x 36
J2M3 Jack x 17
N1K1-J George x 13



Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt I x 14
P-38L Lightning x 92
F6F-3 Hellcat x 259


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 12 destroyed
D4Y4 Judy: 22 destroyed
J2M3 Jack: 7 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 6 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 51
A6M5b Zero x 15
A6M5c Zero x 108
A7M2 Sam x 32
B6N2 Jill x 149
B7A2 Grace x 159
J2M3 Jack x 45
N1K1-J George x 124



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 50
F4U-1A Corsair x 62
F4U-1D Corsair x 63
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 351


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed
A7M2 Sam: 1 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 11 destroyed, 49 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 7 destroyed by flak
B7A2 Grace: 8 destroyed, 32 damaged
B7A2 Grace: 6 destroyed by flak
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Torpedo hits 1
CV Lexington II
CVL Langley, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CVL Princeton, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CVL Cowpens, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVL Cabot, Kamikaze hits 1
CVL San Jacinto, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CVL Monterey, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVL Independence, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CVL Bataan
CV Indomitable, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Hornet II
CV Bunker Hill, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CVL Belleau Wood
CV Franklin
CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 1
CV Victorious, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CV Intrepid
CV Hornet, Torpedo hits 1
CL Mobile, Torpedo hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 42 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 10
B7A2 Grace x 18
G4M1 Betty x 18
G4M3a Betty x 18



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 50
F4U-1A Corsair x 61
F4U-1D Corsair x 63
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 345


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 5 destroyed
B7A2 Grace: 3 destroyed
B7A2 Grace: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M1 Betty: 6 destroyed
G4M3a Betty: 8 destroyed, 2 damaged

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CVL Belleau Wood
DD Tingey
CVL Cabot, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
DD Trathen
CVL Bataan, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

< Message edited by hades1001 -- 1/26/2012 4:02:46 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 1:59:09 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
I don't argue with the view that huge raids mean almost certain annihilation of the target no matter what CAP they put up --- in the first raid you show there not a single strike aircraft was attacked by the defending CAP, pretty impressive work for the Japanese escorts given that there were 474 of them vs 1,183 CAP fighters.

That's a ratio of CAP to escorts of 2.5 to 1 yet not a single strike aircraft got shot down by CAP ( according to the screens Greyjoy posted in his AAR ).


I do think though we have to bear in mind that that day Japan sortied something like 2,500 planes ( i haven't done an exact count but it is roughly correct ) so the odds of 743 ( roughly 1/3rd ) arriving at roughly the same time increases given the fact that such a huge glob of planes flew from a small number of airbases.


Whether it is possible or not is one thing. It certainly seems to be the way to go to swamp CV TFs no matter how much CAP they put up though. Of course a lot of people aren't seeing this since they are playing in 1942 or 43 or even early 44 when such huge strikes just don't happen. Late-war though they definitely do.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 2
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:14:14 PM   
Itdepends

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
You can't compare 2 flights of 108 planes in Pearl Harbour to a late war strike. Effectively the carriers use for PH are a single air strip (each equivalent to a level 1 or 2 airfield). The late war strikes you're talking about above would have originated from multiple air bases with large numbers of runways- allowing much better coordination.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 3
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:21:16 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
This is a reasonable coordinated strike size in real life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 114,56

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 38
A6M5 Zero x 38
A6M5c Zero x 48
B6N2 Jill x 33
G4M1 Betty x 40
G4M3a Betty x 18
N1K1-J George x 47
P1Y1 Frances x 18



Allied aircraft
Thunderbolt I x 15
P-38L Lightning x 101
F6F-3 Hellcat x 280


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 7 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 13 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 7 destroyed, 12 damaged
B6N2 Jill: 2 destroyed by flak
G4M1 Betty: 15 destroyed, 6 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M3a Betty: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
N1K1-J George: 14 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 4 destroyed, 5 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CL Newfoundland
DD Walker
BB Mississippi
CL Birmingham
DD Halligan
CL Santa Fe
DD Witte de With
APD Bulmer
DD Relentless
APD Barr
CL Biloxi

(in reply to Itdepends)
Post #: 4
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:22:08 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
And this is reasonable only in STAR WAR!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
A6M3a Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 48
A6M5b Zero x 15
A6M5c Zero x 142
A7M2 Sam x 33
B7A2 Grace x 235
D4Y4 Judy x 34
J2M3 Jack x 48
N1K1-J George x 81
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 21



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 129
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 555


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 3 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
B7A2 Grace: 15 destroyed, 32 damaged
B7A2 Grace: 17 destroyed by flak
D4Y4 Judy: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged
D4Y4 Judy: 4 destroyed by flak
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Hancock, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
CV Ticonderoga, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CV Yorktown II, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Illustrious, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
CV Essex, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CV Wasp II, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CLAA San Diego, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Lang
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 1
DD Preston II
DD Arunta

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 5
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:29:58 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Look at the combat result from Greyjoy and Radar's game. Great game so far. But really ruined by the system.

What part of the system ruined the game. Over at GreyJoy's AAR both LoBaron and myself have provided extensive explanations how GreyJoy's own decisions contributed to the outcome. This is a complex game and it requires deep study to play it properly, a bit like fighting a war in real life. It is not the fault of the game system if one player has a better grasp of game mechanics than the other. Again it is not the system's fault when the wrong strategy and tactics is implemented.

Yeah, yeah I know it's now wise to stick your nose into massive Jap LBA range. But the Allied players have to do this sooner or later.

And what evidence can you adduce to support your claim that "Allied players have to do this sooner or later". I hope your not of the Field Marshal Haig school of thought and competence. Luckily for the system, there are several players with the requisite skill and creativity who constantly demonstrate how the game can be played without constant frontal assaults on narrow fronts.

Leaking cap works really well in early war, but it apparently broke at the later war stage when thousands of planes involved.

Leaking cap works just as well late war as it does early war. The system does not change due to the passage of time. Leaking CAP, whether in December 1941 or September 1944, can never substitute for a properly structured defensive zone.

So are you claiming that the result is due to the failure of leaking CAP, a claim not made by GreyJoy who most definitely did not rely on leaking CAP to provide his primary defense? Maybe you have some other instance of the failure of leaking CAP to achieve what it cannot do even in December 1941. If so, you really ought to provide the evidence to support your claim.


And the key issue is not even the leaking cap, but the coordination.

Whose coordination was a problem? It couldn't be GreyJoy because coordination of CAP does not exist at any stage of the game, it is a concept which only applies to offensive strike packages. Unless of course you are confusing CAP being out of position (a point extensively commented on in the AAR) with coordination. If so, it isn't the system's fault that you don't understand air combat.

That leaves us only with you claiming that the degree of coordination achieved by rader is a problem. Let's get this perfectly understood; you don't like that rader skillfully achieved combination on his first strike package. He was considerably less successful on subsequent strike packages but that is presumably OK, so you like one outcome of the system but dislike another outcome of the system. Why should rader's skillful play be penalised when his opponent has never properly addressed the real factors which allow rader to assemble such a potent strike package.


When in the hell did you see either Jap or Allies can deliver a 600+ planes COORDINATED strike in any time of the war? In Pearl harbor Japs delivered 2 wave of 108 planes in each wave with their best Pilots ever. And I can't image they can do this at the later war stage with less capable pilots.

Every player on this forum demands that the most minute details of military hardware accurately represents the capabilities and deficiencies of the quipment of the era. Same regarding doctrine. Same regarding strengths and weakness of historical figures. But those same people who complain about the accuracy of esotoric details are quite willing to exploit the engine which because of the inherent game abstractions, will always be prone to exploitation.

The reason why 600+ plane coordinated strikes did not occur, as you claim, is due to several reasons, all of which are ultimately attributable to how players play the game.

(a) unrealistic tempo of operations, and yet players complain if an aircraft has a service rating of 3
(b) the overly simplified logistical system in play which allows fantasy operations to be mounted
(c) the failure of players to adopt the correct strategy and tactics to limit their opponent's capabilities
(d) the ability of players to disregard the historical political and home front limits on conducting the war

It is very hypocritical for players to demand historical accuracy from the system and proceed to disregard such historical accuracy in their own play, and then proceed to blame the system. For let us be perfectly clear, every game engine can be exploited.



The same things applies to Allies too. The coordination just group too many planes together no matter the plane type, speed, etc...

I don't think you understand anything about coordination. Did you note the altitude flown by the strike package? Did you note just how standardised the aircraft models were? Did you note the actual airfields the strike packge few from? Plus contrary to your comment in the preceding paragraph, pilot skill is not a factor but then how would you know the actual skill levels of the Japanese pilots.

Next time you criticise the coordination achieved by rader, try to remember all the complaints regularly made by players who fail to achieve satisfactory coordination. Or are you claiming that rader is playing a special exe. file, or is it maybe the other players with the special exe. file who fail to achieve coordination. 'Fess up, which is the true system solely responsible for this alleged unsatisfactory state of affairs.


And any time this kind of coordination shows up it means a total demolition or either Jap/Allies carrier fleet. Which is also very unlikely happened in the real life.

So what do you call Midway and the Mariannas Turkey Shoot. Those outcomes were produced by far fewer strike packages.


And hereby I call for a major modification of the air combat model for the middle to late stage of war. Otherwise I may have to give up this game.

Yes, in light of the quality of your critique I do think it would be best for you give up this game.

Please leave your opinions below.



Alfred

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 6
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:30:04 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Coordinated strike of 600 bombers is as unrealistic as CAP of 1000 fighters. It's just a game that don't have penalties for stacking, so player stack everything.

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 7
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:37:24 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Sadly Alfred's critique - while very, very, very harsh in tone - is correct.

Also, I think you're overlooking the fact that in terms of co-ordination only about 1/3rd of the planes he launched that day actually DID co-ordinate into that big strike. The rest came in in dribs and drabs.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 8
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:45:41 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2071
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred



Every player on this forum demands that the most minute details of military hardware accurately represents the capabilities and deficiencies of the quipment of the era. Same regarding doctrine. Same regarding strengths and weakness of historical figures. But those same people who complain about the accuracy of esotoric details are quite willing to exploit the engine which because of the inherent game abstractions, will always be prone to exploitation.

The reason why 600+ plane coordinated strikes did not occur, as you claim, is due to several reasons, all of which are ultimately attributable to how players play the game.

(a) unrealistic tempo of operations, and yet players complain if an aircraft has a service rating of 3
(b) the overly simplified logistical system in play which allows fantasy operations to be mounted
(c) the failure of players to adopt the correct strategy and tactics to limit their opponent's capabilities
(d) the ability of players to disregard the historical political and home front limits on conducting the war

It is very hypocritical for players to demand historical accuracy from the system and proceed to disregard such historical accuracy in their own play, and then proceed to blame the system. For let us be perfectly clear, every game engine can be exploited.


Alfred


Fantastic post Alfred and well stated as always.



_____________________________


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

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 9
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:53:25 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Look at the combat result from Greyjoy and Radar's game. Great game so far. But really ruined by the system.

What part of the system ruined the game. Over at GreyJoy's AAR both LoBaron and myself have provided extensive explanations how GreyJoy's own decisions contributed to the outcome. This is a complex game and it requires deep study to play it properly, a bit like fighting a war in real life. It is not the fault of the game system if one player has a better grasp of game mechanics than the other. Again it is not the system's fault when the wrong strategy and tactics is implemented.

The A2A model is ruining the game. And don't mention the land combat mechanism.

Yeah, yeah I know it's now wise to stick your nose into massive Jap LBA range. But the Allied players have to do this sooner or later.

And what evidence can you adduce to support your claim that "Allied players have to do this sooner or later". I hope your not of the Field Marshal Haig school of thought and competence. Luckily for the system, there are several players with the requisite skill and creativity who constantly demonstrate how the game can be played without constant frontal assaults on narrow fronts.

Leaking cap works really well in early war, but it apparently broke at the later war stage when thousands of planes involved.

Leaking cap works just as well late war as it does early war. The system does not change due to the passage of time. Leaking CAP, whether in December 1941 or September 1944, can never substitute for a properly structured defensive zone.

Yeah it works really well when 1000 planes on cap(300 in the air at least) shot down 50 out 700 planes in the first wave.

So are you claiming that the result is due to the failure of leaking CAP, a claim not made by GreyJoy who most definitely did not rely on leaking CAP to provide his primary defense? Maybe you have some other instance of the failure of leaking CAP to achieve what it cannot do even in December 1941. If so, you really ought to provide the evidence to support your claim.


Yeah I have done many tests about attack and CAP with the stock EXE and modified EXE and I post in the forum but I guess you are too busy to see it.


And the key issue is not even the leaking cap, but the coordination.

Whose coordination was a problem? It couldn't be GreyJoy because coordination of CAP does not exist at any stage of the game, it is a concept which only applies to offensive strike packages. Unless of course you are confusing CAP being out of position (a point extensively commented on in the AAR) with coordination. If so, it isn't the system's fault that you don't understand air combat.

That leaves us only with you claiming that the degree of coordination achieved by rader is a problem. Let's get this perfectly understood; you don't like that rader skillfully achieved combination on his first strike package. He was considerably less successful on subsequent strike packages but that is presumably OK, so you like one outcome of the system but dislike another outcome of the system. Why should rader's skillful play be penalised when his opponent has never properly addressed the real factors which allow rader to assemble such a potent strike package.


Radar is a respectful and skillful opponent, and my comment is not aiming at any specific player. It's just the unrealistic number of planes in one wave. No matter how hard you tried, how well you know about this game, it should just not happen when you try to simulate WWII combat.

When in the hell did you see either Jap or Allies can deliver a 600+ planes COORDINATED strike in any time of the war? In Pearl harbor Japs delivered 2 wave of 108 planes in each wave with their best Pilots ever. And I can't image they can do this at the later war stage with less capable pilots.

Every player on this forum demands that the most minute details of military hardware accurately represents the capabilities and deficiencies of the quipment of the era. Same regarding doctrine. Same regarding strengths and weakness of historical figures. But those same people who complain about the accuracy of esotoric details are quite willing to exploit the engine which because of the inherent game abstractions, will always be prone to exploitation.

The reason why 600+ plane coordinated strikes did not occur, as you claim, is due to several reasons, all of which are ultimately attributable to how players play the game.

(a) unrealistic tempo of operations, and yet players complain if an aircraft has a service rating of 3
(b) the overly simplified logistical system in play which allows fantasy operations to be mounted
(c) the failure of players to adopt the correct strategy and tactics to limit their opponent's capabilities
(d) the ability of players to disregard the historical political and home front limits on conducting the war

It is very hypocritical for players to demand historical accuracy from the system and proceed to disregard such historical accuracy in their own play, and then proceed to blame the system. For let us be perfectly clear, every game engine can be exploited.


It's all about how the game engine limits the unrealistic happenings. And it's doable by current engine. In WITP I was attacked by 1200 coordinated Jap carrier aircraft in a single wave, and NONE of the 1200 planes piloted by 80 exp pilots pass through the CAP. NONE of them. I don't call this realistic either. The current AE A2A model just go to far on the other end.

The same things applies to Allies too. The coordination just group too many planes together no matter the plane type, speed, etc...

I don't think you understand anything about coordination. Did you note the altitude flown by the strike package? Did you note just how standardised the aircraft models were? Did you note the actual airfields the strike packge few from? Plus contrary to your comment in the preceding paragraph, pilot skill is not a factor but then how would you know the actual skill levels of the Japanese pilots.

Next time you criticise the coordination achieved by rader, try to remember all the complaints regularly made by players who fail to achieve satisfactory coordination. Or are you claiming that rader is playing a special exe. file, or is it maybe the other players with the special exe. file who fail to achieve coordination. 'Fess up, which is the true system solely responsible for this alleged unsatisfactory state of affairs.


And any time this kind of coordination shows up it means a total demolition or either Jap/Allies carrier fleet. Which is also very unlikely happened in the real life.

So what do you call Midway and the Mariannas Turkey Shoot. Those outcomes were produced by far fewer strike packages.

Excuse me, how many planes involves in the Midway, how many Japs fighter on CAP at that time? The game engine simulates the small to middle carrier engagement perfectly. But when things go to later war and thousands of planes involved, it just failed


And hereby I call for a major modification of the air combat model for the middle to late stage of war. Otherwise I may have to give up this game.

Yes, in light of the quality of your critique I do think it would be best for you give up this game.

yeah you bet

Please leave your opinions below.



Alfred



< Message edited by hades1001 -- 1/26/2012 3:02:26 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 2:57:43 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
I'd like to respond to the hypocritical comment.... I have a fair idea where Alfred is aiming that.

I'll just say that different players draw the line in different places. I think it is unwarranted to claim that people are hypocritical simply for drawing the line in a different place.

Some people want accurate minutiae and to be forced to follow historical operations. Others are more interested in having the technical characteristics accurate and then exploring what ifs. Some people just want to see stuff burn. If someone who wants the technical characteristics right but is happy to play "the game" as opposed to "history" makes a comment about an outcome seeming unlikely and possible due to a limitation in the code are they a hypocrite or are they just a person who draws the line in a different place than you who is trying to make a point about something they're concerned about?

I'd argue they're the later. Once we start labelling those with whom we are not in lock step as arrogant or "whiners" all possibility of reasonable discussion goes out the window. Is that really what you want Alfred? To sink to the same level of attacking "the other" as various Da Babes members?


As to exploiting the game engine.... Well, as the war went on larger and larger raids occured. In the game this propensity is accelerated and exaggerated. With that said it is becoming a matter of doubt as to whether the game can handle such combats. Instead of beating those who point this out as whiners or hypocrites why not join in trying to make the engine able to cope with those sorts of combats --- which do occur in-game in '44 and '45? Surely helping the engine cope with what actually does happen in-game in the late-war period is a reasonable goal?


Hades,
You might get farther with a less strident tone in your posts... It definitely looks not to be able to handle large combats BUT until we have testing under controlled conditions the sort of "its all broken, its the end" type of post isn't really helpful.

Some people believe its broken, some aren't sure and some are just interested in sitting on the sidelines calling the others whiners and hypocrites without engaging in the checking process. When you post something extreme ( like you have ) you just give them ammunition and a false respectability to their intention not to engage with the checking process through the use of labelling etc. Tactically it just isn't a good approach.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/26/2012 3:21:07 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 11
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:12:21 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Nemo I just want to express my feeling and I know there are many people here are reluctant to changes just like there are royalist and revolutionary in the 1800's Europe.

But the history tells that the side aiming for a better future(here is a better game) will always prevail.

I have been playing WITP/AE for almost 5 years I love this game, the best game ever(well WOW is pretty good at the beginning.) I don't want a great game like Greyjoy and Radar to be ruined by a system problem.(Greyjoy made a mistake, he should be punished, but not by a exaggerate game mechanism. )


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 12
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:16:33 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
And I apologize for any offensive language or expression.

Let's discuss this matter calmly and wisely.

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 13
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:28:17 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7135
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
When I look at this, I have to ask 1 very important question:

Why are all those Allied carriers in the same hex? Or at least close enough together that they can be hit like that?

Even as an IJN player (or maybe especially because I am an IJN Player) I tend to spread my carrier groups out a bit...yes they can still support each other, but its harder to get them all in one mass cooridinated strike.

In such a massive air battle, it would be easy for the strike aircraft to slip through...its just going to be mass confusion up there. Remember, your pilots (even with radar assistance) are flying at 300+ mph trying to engage enemy aircraft that are going 300+ mph. And with so many friendly aircraft, there would likely be cooridnation problems. Basically it is easier on the attackers, they must simply locate their target and concentrate on getting there, the defender has to try to stop them which is the harder part of the battle.

To me, this seems more like a case of putting all your eggs into 1 basket and ending up with a giant omlet. But that is just my humble opinion of course.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 14
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:31:36 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Given the current model, we know that leaking cap works well in small-mid size carrier engagement. But it's clear not working well in a large number occasion.

I would think to put size cap on each raid and break the major wave of 600-700 hundred planes into 3 smaller ones just like the rest waves of the day did. So it will simulate the situation better, attacker still can damage/sunk a few enemy carriers but not wipe out the fleet with 200+ torpedo bombers.

A sudden death of carrier fleet on any side would be a real game killer.

< Message edited by hades1001 -- 1/26/2012 3:34:06 PM >

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 15
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:39:38 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
And talk about add cap to prevent unrealistic happenings, my other thought is based on the latest test.

By dedicating 350AC size(10-12 lines) on research for each type of plane, Shinden and Sam could be accelerated by 14 and 12 months respectively. So a good Jap player who really know how research works will achieve just like what radar did in his game.

Of course Japs spent a lot of resources on the research, they should be rewarded. But I still think 12-14 months is too much. A maximum number of months cap could be very helpful here.

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 16
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:49:45 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hades, I see your point and I dont think the actual game rules are perfect in this case. However you overuse the word realistic by a large decree. Realism is gradual, one does not simply have it or not.
Just saying. No offence meant just my two Credits <--(Currency in the SW universe)

< Message edited by Gräfin Zeppelin -- 1/26/2012 3:50:06 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 17
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 3:55:37 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Well maybe I pickup the wrong word. English is not native language and I'm not good at it.

Let's switch "unrealistic" to "a little bit too much".

The game is still great and try to simulate the reality but sometimes it goes " a little bit too much" on some direction. How does it sound this time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Hades, I see your point and I dont think the actual game rules are perfect in this case. However you overuse the word realistic by a large decree. Realism is gradual, one does not simply have it or not.
Just saying. No offence meant just my two Credits <--(Currency in the SW universe)


(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 18
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 4:00:18 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7135
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
IMO, if the game was realistic there would be no reason to play it, the outcome would be predetermined...much like watching news reels from the time period.

I don't want realistic, I want fun and challenging.

In the example, mistakes were made, and the Japanese player managed to pull off a coup de grace. Without the mistakes and some obvious lucky die rolls on the attackers part, the result would be as it usually is, the allied cap shreds the attacking force for little to no return.

The one thing no game mechanic can take into account is human error, or human brilliance for that matter. The mechanic must remain a constant, and we the end user can do things to make the best or worst of it.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 19
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 4:06:50 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3558
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
I'll try to avoid any inflammatory verbage as I believe everyone here knows where I stand on the issue of the game's provision to the Japanese side of capabilities that can only be ascribed to fantasy.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 20
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 4:33:57 PM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
What part of the system ruined the game.


The part where 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position (lets ignore, like you do, that of 1200 fighters on 60% CAP, only 1/3 of those 60% are actually...you know...on CAP) attacks 300 bombers and 300 fighters and only manages to shoot down 7 fighters and 15 bombers in 40 minutes.

THAT is what you defend. While being both rude and condescending at the same time no less!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 21
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 4:41:46 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
What part of the system ruined the game.


The part where 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position (lets ignore, like you do, that of 1200 fighters on 60% CAP, only 1/3 of those 60% are actually...you know...on CAP) attacks 300 bombers and 300 fighters and only manages to shoot down 7 fighters and 15 bombers in 40 minutes.

THAT is what you defend. While being both rude and condescending at the same time no less!



Please try to get your facts right first.

Others have shown the correct numbers.

Alfred

(in reply to Bluebook)
Post #: 22
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 4:56:59 PM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
What part of the system ruined the game.


The part where 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position (lets ignore, like you do, that of 1200 fighters on 60% CAP, only 1/3 of those 60% are actually...you know...on CAP) attacks 300 bombers and 300 fighters and only manages to shoot down 7 fighters and 15 bombers in 40 minutes.

THAT is what you defend. While being both rude and condescending at the same time no less!



Please try to get your facts right first.

Others have shown the correct numbers.

Alfred


The "correct" numbers are guesses and estimates, remember that.

But even using them, the system is stil flawed. 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position should shoot down more than 50 bombers and escorts during a 40 minute engagement.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 23
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:11:05 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
OK here is the most problematic morning wave. The whole combat info is attached.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sadogashima at 115,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
A6M3a Zero x 64
A6M5 Zero x 48
A6M5b Zero x 15
A6M5c Zero x 142
A7M2 Sam x 33
B7A2 Grace x 235
D4Y4 Judy x 34
J2M3 Jack x 48
N1K1-J George x 81
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 21



Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 97
F4U-1A Corsair x 330
F4U-1D Corsair x 129
F6F-3 Hellcat x 72
F6F-5 Hellcat x 555


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 3 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
B7A2 Grace: 15 destroyed, 32 damaged
B7A2 Grace: 17 destroyed by flak
D4Y4 Judy: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged
D4Y4 Judy: 4 destroyed by flak
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Hancock, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
CV Ticonderoga, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CV Yorktown II, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Illustrious, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
CV Essex, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CV Wasp II, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CLAA San Diego, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DD Lang
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 1
DD Preston II
DD Arunta



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 10000' *
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
17 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
10 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
13 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
6 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
12 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
14 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
14 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
17 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
10 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
10 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
16 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
21 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
17 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
18 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 3000' *
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
15 x B7A2 Grace launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
2 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 2000' *
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D4Y4 Judy releasing from 1000' *
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VF-17 with F4U-1A Corsair (4 airborne, 16 on standby, 10 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes
VF-40 with F6F-5 Hellcat (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 13 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
VF-1 with F4U-1D Corsair (8 airborne, 20 on standby, 12 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
VF-2 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 16 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
VF-3 with F6F-5 Hellcat (8 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
VF-6 with F6F-5 Hellcat (8 airborne, 17 on standby, 16 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 37300 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 37300.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
VF-7 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 63 minutes
VF-8 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 51 minutes
VF-10 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 60 minutes
VF-11 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 54 minutes
VF-13 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 27000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 62 minutes
VF-14 with F6F-5 Hellcat (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 16 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 62 minutes
VF-16 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 17000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes
VF-71 with F6F-5 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes
VF-80 with F6F-5 Hellcat (8 airborne, 17 on standby, 17 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 27000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
VF-24 with F6F-5 Hellcat (0 airborne, 9 on standby, 9 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 58 minutes
VF-25 with F6F-3 Hellcat (4 airborne, 12 on standby, 4 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
VF-30 with F6F-3 Hellcat (4 airborne, 15 on standby, 2 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 52 minutes
VF-50 with F4U-1D Corsair (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 7 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 21000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
No.834 Sqn-FF-2 FAA with Corsair II (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

Fuel storage explosion on CV Lexington
Ammo storage explosion on CV Wasp
Fuel storage explosion on CV Lexington
Fuel storage explosion on CV Hancock


By examine the facts, we have:
84 fighters: airborne
303 fighters: standby
259 fighters: scrambling

and they have about 40 minutes to react.

What the number of fighters will you suggest is involved in this combat?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 24
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:15:31 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
And Greyjoy has 1183 fighters on CAP, 646 showed on this report, that's about 54% of total fighters on CAP. 60% CAP is already implemented here.

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 25
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:19:37 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7135
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
What part of the system ruined the game.


The part where 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position (lets ignore, like you do, that of 1200 fighters on 60% CAP, only 1/3 of those 60% are actually...you know...on CAP) attacks 300 bombers and 300 fighters and only manages to shoot down 7 fighters and 15 bombers in 40 minutes.

THAT is what you defend. While being both rude and condescending at the same time no less!



Please try to get your facts right first.

Others have shown the correct numbers.

Alfred


The "correct" numbers are guesses and estimates, remember that.

But even using them, the system is stil flawed. 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position should shoot down more than 50 bombers and escorts during a 40 minute engagement.


Conversely it is just as 'unrealistic' to have dozens of pilots make 'Ace in Day' as is currenly possible in game. During WWII, AIAD was the extremely rare, exceptional pilot; in WiTPAE it is far too common. The number of aces for World War 2 is in the hundreads (counting all combatant countries), in WiTP you can have that many for either side by mid-game.

You complain about results that are (in your opinion) too few shot down, while I have seen battles that had (in my opinion) far too many shot down. In the end it balances out, one raid will be very successful, the next may be a total disaster. Toward the end game, it becomes skewed in favor of the Allies (not terribly unrealistic) to an extent, as the more capable airframes with well trained pilots are harder to overcome with raw skill of the Japanese pilots in obsolete aircraft.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Bluebook)
Post #: 26
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:26:17 PM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
You complain about results that are (in your opinion) too few shot down, while I have seen battles that had (in my opinion) far too many shot down. In the end it balances out, one raid will be very successful, the next may be a total disaster. Toward the end game, it becomes skewed in favor of the Allies (not terribly unrealistic) to an extent, as the more capable airframes with well trained pilots are harder to overcome with raw skill of the Japanese pilots in obsolete aircraft.


No, you are wrong. By that logic a man with one foot in a bucket of ice, and the other foot in a fire should be perfectly content since it all balances out...

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 27
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:30:37 PM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001
By examine the facts, we have:
84 fighters: airborne
303 fighters: standby
259 fighters: scrambling

and they have about 40 minutes to react.



LOL, well thats a big issue right there. If I have 1200 fighters on 60% CAP, and only 84 are airborne at any given time, something is wrong, no?

But even using that figure, 84 Hellcats and Corsairs bouncing 200+200 japanese bombers and fighters for 40 minutes (not counting all the scramblers or standbyers joining the fight) should result in more losses than 15+7.

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 28
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:34:29 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 974
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
According to Labaron it should be around 50, and I believe 50 is close, so let's use 50 here instead of 15+7=22.

So the CAP managed to shot down 50 Jap planes! what a miracle!

Seriously, i would estimate at least 300 Allies fighters(instead of 200 as Alfred claimed) have been involved in this fight.

Of course they won't stop such a large bulk of attackers(this is another issue, we can discuss it later). But 300 fighters only managed to shot down 50(at most) Jap attackers, which is around 7% of the total 700 Planes.

Does this sounds really reasonable to anyone?

And remember, Greyjoy and Radar are using a modified EXE which increase Jap plane lost, if you are using a stock EXE the Jap A2A will be even less.

< Message edited by hades1001 -- 1/26/2012 5:53:23 PM >

(in reply to Bluebook)
Post #: 29
RE: Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike... - 1/26/2012 5:45:07 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
What part of the system ruined the game.


The part where 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position (lets ignore, like you do, that of 1200 fighters on 60% CAP, only 1/3 of those 60% are actually...you know...on CAP) attacks 300 bombers and 300 fighters and only manages to shoot down 7 fighters and 15 bombers in 40 minutes.

THAT is what you defend. While being both rude and condescending at the same time no less!



Please try to get your facts right first.

Others have shown the correct numbers.

Alfred


The "correct" numbers are guesses and estimates, remember that.

But even using them, the system is stil flawed. 200 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and in position should shoot down more than 50 bombers and escorts during a 40 minute engagement.


This is the second time you have asserted that it was a 40 minute engagement. A combat report never states how long a round of combat lasted. You are misreading the combat report.

It is also the second time you assert that 200 Hellcats and Corsairs where in position whereas the combat report shows only 3 squadrons were in position to get all the planes in position in time. The remaining in position ab initio CAP is provided only from aircraft already airborne, a figure which is well less than 100. Again you are misreading the report.

Then of course you totally omit the number of escorting fighters.

All things considered, for that initial round the few defending fighters which were in position to meet the enemy did quite a good job. In subsequent rounds as more fighters arrived, a much greater toll upon the enemy was exacted.

I direct you to the numbers breakdown provided by LoBaron in GreyJoy's AAR.

Alfred

(in reply to Bluebook)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Am I the only one who feels the coordination strike is "a lit bit too much"? Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.131