Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A to A over Manila ?

 
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 >> The War Room >> A to A over Manila ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 7:59:52 PM   
Richard III

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		It was tactifully suggested to me that this was the approiate forum for this rather then the Tech Support Forum.

Could someone explain how, and perhaps more import, why these extreme results occured ?
_________________________________________________
Dec 14 1941

Morning Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes**

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17

Allied aircraft
P-40B Warhawk x 16
P-40E Warhawk x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 20000 feet

CAP engaged:
24th PG/17th PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
24th PG/20th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 11 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
35th PG/21st PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 7 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
__________________________________________________________________________

This was the elite Hikotai Air Group with all high 70`s to 80`s exp. pilots, 0 fatigue, launching from San Fernando. In the combat animation,which went on forever, they were all reporting "diving on target XXX** as they should since no Warhawks were Airborn.

BTW: Before someone calls "bad luck" Virtually the same thing happened in our ( redone because of bad game settings ) first game start. ( actual losses above were 7 AC, 3 pilots KIA, 4 MIA. )


_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow

< Message edited by Richard III -- 1/28/2012 8:00:30 PM >

_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow
Post #: 1
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 8:40:08 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3280
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: online 		It is explained all the time, but still many players disregard the advice, that a Combat Report by itself provides little accurate data as to what actually transpired. To get a fuller picture, one has to incorporate the data provided in the Combat Animation, Operations Report and Aircraft Losses screen.

Some of the reasons why the above result may have occurred, assuming the posted extract of the Combat Report is an accurate representation of what actually transpired could be:

1. The American pilots were more skilled in air to air combat

2. The American pilots had far superior defense ratings

3. The total number of American planes ultimately engaged in combat exceeded the Japanese planes engaged in combat

4. More American than Japanese planes achieved the "bounce"

One of the reasons why I remain somewhat sceptical that the entire relevant section of the Combat Report has been provided, without any editing, is that it is extremely rare to find any air combat produce only destroyed planes and no damaged planes. I'm particularly suspicious because at the end of the day only one Zero swept.

Alfred

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 2
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:11:03 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 769
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		Weather in hex: Severe storms

The Americans got lucky in severe weather.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:13:46 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Zeros don't perform very well at high altitude. My zeros sweep only at their best band at 11,000-14,000 feet, and they are doing fine. Same with early Oscars, no need to go above 14k. Enemy CAP can fly higher, but good defensive skill and best maneuver band offset altitude disadvantage.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 4
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:26:19 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

It was tactifully suggested to me that this was the approiate forum for this rather then the Tech Support Forum.

Could someone explain how, and perhaps more import, why these extreme results occured ?
_________________________________________________
Dec 14 1941

Morning Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes**

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17

Allied aircraft
P-40B Warhawk x 16
P-40E Warhawk x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 20000 feet

CAP engaged:
24th PG/17th PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
24th PG/20th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 11 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
35th PG/21st PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 7 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
__________________________________________________________________________

This was the elite Hikotai Air Group with all high 70`s to 80`s exp. pilots, 0 fatigue, launching from San Fernando. In the combat animation,which went on forever, they were all reporting "diving on target XXX** as they should since no Warhawks were Airborn.

BTW: Before someone calls "bad luck" Virtually the same thing happened in our ( redone because of bad game settings ) first game start. ( actual losses above were 7 AC, 3 pilots KIA, 4 MIA. )


_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow



Ok, lets look at the the battle in detail:

Combatants on both sides at start of the fight were probably 22 Warhawks against 17 Zeros.
Bad weather reduces chance of detection, both for radar and for the dogfight.
Detection was 9 minutes to target, the sweep arrived on target only after a large part of Warhawks were already airborne (those 22 which were scambling on detection),
still, 9 minutes were not enough for all Allied fighters to reach designated altitude before being engaged by Zeros, the P40Bs probably fared a bit better there than
the E versions because of different climb performance.
Because of this the Zeroes got the initial dive, attacking the formation trying to intercept, but after the first pass it was already a fight on quite equal terms,
advantage for the Japanese probably skill/exp and a slightly better airframe, advantage for the Allies the layered CAP allowing to box in the Zero formations, as
well as the slightly higher numbers enabling them to keep numerical parity even though bounced.

At this point of the combat replay there were still more Allied planes shot down than Japanese.

But now the deciding factor kicks in: While the Japanese dropped steadily in numbers for every plane turning back, being damaged, or shot down, the Allies
were able to saturate the battlefield with more fighter units launched as they get ready.
Losing the numbers game while being squeezed between lower and bouncing higher P40 formations the chances for a successful battle outcome tilts
decidingly in favor of the Allies.


This is why you lost so many fighters this raid.


Is this helpful?




< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/28/2012 9:29:23 PM >

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 5
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:30:53 PM   
Richard III

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		Note total Air Losses. Zeros only flew sweeps over Manila.

Storms effect both sides.
Note time to target, Zeros were over target at 20,000 feet while there were ( according to the Combat Report) no airborne Cap, note time listed for Warhawks to get off ground, and climb to altitude.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 6
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:52:30 PM   
Richard III

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		The first Zero Group, 17 AC, with high 70`s & 80 skill drivers, over target at 20,000 feet, get" the bounce "on Warhawks,** still struggling to get off the ground in 1 & 2`s, and from there up to altitude**, shoot down 2 Warhawks, lose 11 Zeros and pilots in a dogfight VS Warhawks with at best 60`s skill pilots.....also what`s up with "1 Zero sweeping" in the combat report.

I fAlfred wants a save he can have one to varify the Combat Report.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 7
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:53:35 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III
Note time to target, Zeros were over target at 20,000 feet while there were ( according to the Combat Report) no airborne Cap, note time listed for Warhawks to get off ground, and climb to altitude.


No you are misinterpreting the data.
The time to reach interception only tells you the time for the very last plane.

For 24th PG/17th PS it is the "2 plane(s) not yet engaged"
For 24th PG/20th PS it is either the 4 on standby or the 1 plane(s) not yet engaged
For 35th PG/21st PS ditto

The 22 scambling fighters were airborne for several minutes on time over target, and could mix up with the Zekes immediately.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 8
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:57:50 PM   
Richard III

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

One of the reasons why I remain somewhat sceptical that the entire relevant section of the Combat Report has been provided, without any editing, is that it is extremely rare to find any air combat produce only destroyed planes and no damaged planes. I'm particularly suspicious because at the end of the day only one Zero swept.

Alfred


I have no idea what that means, if you want a save I`ll provide one.

Here is the relevent combat Report in total. What more do you need /

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17



Allied aircraft
P-40B Warhawk x 16
P-40E Warhawk x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
1 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 20000 feet

CAP engaged:
24th PG/17th PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
24th PG/20th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 11 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
35th PG/21st PS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 7 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 9
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 9:58:04 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Richard, don´t get this wrong please, but theres no need for a savegame investigation. What happened is not difficult to understand,
with your setup 9 out of 10 times you would lose the fight, 3-4 out of 10 you would lose big time.

Read the posts and recheck the setup. You simply lost a numbers´ game against a well though out CAP, not much to worry about.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 10
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 10:24:08 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3280
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

The first Zero Group, 17 AC, with high 70`s & 80 skill drivers, over target at 20,000 feet, get" the bounce "on Warhawks,** still struggling to get off the ground in 1 & 2`s, and from there up to altitude**, shoot down 2 Warhawks, lose 11 Zeros and pilots in a dogfight VS Warhawks with at best 60`s skill pilots.....also what`s up with "1 Zero sweeping" in the combat report.

I fAlfred wants a save he can have one to varify the Combat Report.





And your point is what?

For example what point are you making with "high 70s & 80 skill drivers". That statement has no value for these reasons.

(1) Is it meant to say that the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s? If yes they you are clearly wrong because the average pilot experience is only 62. Therefore if some of the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s, the unit must also have many pilots whose experience is in the low 40s.

(2) If the alternative meaning you intended is that they have skill ratings in the 70s and 80s, then you would have to specify which skills for they would not have those high ratings in all pilot skills. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that fighter pilots would have transport skills in the 70s and 80s plus naval torpedo skill ratings at those same high levels.

Do not confuse a pilot's experience rating with his various skill ratings. There are many level 70-80 experience pilots who posses an air to air skill rating in the 20s, or even a 20-30 defense skill rating. Use those "experienced" pilots in a sweep and they are almost guaranteed to die in their first sweep.

Even "experienced" pilots can be defeated by less "experienced" pilots, by enemy airplanes which under certain conditions possess better flight characteristics.

Others have given you quite plausible explanations for the outcome. I would particularly draw your attention to the explanation given as to how the Americans could have achieved the "bounce", an explanation which you seem to have not comprehended.

In your various posts, you strike me as one of those players, and there are several in this category, who has a preconceived view of what an outcome should be and if that outcome is not achieved, immediately blame the perceived "wrong" outcome on the engine being at fault. Never does it enter your mind that the fault might lie with you.

Alfred

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 11
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/28/2012 10:25:41 PM   
wildweasel0585

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline 		I would have to say P-40's performed better due to being layered at different altitudes and having a number advantage over the Zero's.

Puhis, MVR rating wise, at 16-20k medium hi range, Zero's still have an advantage over P-40's. It's only at high altitudes 21k+ where the Zero starts to loose it's MVR rating advantage. At medium altitudes 10-15k, the Zero and P-40 perform roughly the same. The only time having a 10-20k altitude advantage  even matters is when you're going against planes that climb horribly and against a base that has no radar(low detection times), in that case massacre.

In my experience Richard III, having a MVR rating advantage is good, but the main thing is to always have greater numbers. Yes, you had an altitude advantage, better pilots, and surprise, but once all of the P-40's finally showed you, were outnumbered.   Just remember, just because you had the inital altitude advantage, doesn't mean that you will win.  It's not that you had bad luck, you were outnumbered. On the other hand, the group had bad luck. Next time, sweep with 2 groups.

My Zero's have had some bad days, but in the Phillipines campaign overall, they have more kills than they do losses.


_____________________________

THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!!!!

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 12
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 12:07:47 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4872
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline 		Never mind, there's already enough cooks in this kitchen.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 1/29/2012 3:56:43 AM >

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 13
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 1:21:52 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 14890
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline 		Hi Richard,

Most of the advice you've received is good, in my opinion. My take:

1. 25 fatigue is not 'end of the world' high, but its effects on the pilots are not nil. I wouldn't use fighters higher than where they are now-and lower fatigue makes for more effective pilots.

2. Numbers do count for something. Overall, throughout the combat, you were outnumbered >2:1. Even if they came up in dribs and drabs, it will impact the combat dynamic. At >2:1, you are unlikely to control the outcome and have a kill ratio in your favor.

3. The 'bounce' is critically important. If you were set at 20,000 feet and your opponent was also set at 20,000 feet, neither side received this benefit. Early war A6M2 v. P40-you should be striving to maximize your altitude advantage. P39s and P40s historically had problems fighting (or even rising) to higher altitudes where the A6M2 was. If they could, their manueverability suffered.

I would fly my A6M2s on sweep at 25,000 feet, not 20,000 feet. A small 'bounce' could be most useful.

4. Do you have any sort of HRs for manueverability "CAP" on your fighters? For example, in order to avoid the 'stratosphere sweep' phenomenon, many players have a HR to limit planes to an absolute ceiling. Furthermore, they also limit them to the second most manueverable altitude 'band'. Anything like that in your game that may promote realism?

5. Alfred is right about the EXP v. SKILL values. A screenshot of your pilots for this unit could be enlightening.

6. The others are right about the Allied pilots. They may not all be chumps. It's conceivable that he rotated in some stud pilots into the P40 groups to limit the difference between your IJNAF and his pilots.

7. Diversity pays dividends. If he puts up a fight over Manila with his P40s, Move a couple IJAAF Oscar units into the area and sweep the hell out of him. Take some of the load off your IJNAF fighter units.

Good luck and keep asking questions, Richard. This forum is a useful site to learn about the game mechanics.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 1/29/2012 1:26:47 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 14
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 1:38:20 AM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3114
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline 		Who is your opponent here Richard, are you playing one of the those old AFB air-exponent masters? Because this guy layered his CAP, and if he does that, he probably had a salting of high-experience pilots too.

I would watch out for AVG too, he will probably set some traps for you with them. Also make a note when he gets Hurricanes in numbers, as you will need Ki-43's against them.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 15
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 1:51:11 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12401
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		One thing I haven't seen mentioned - sure Zeros have better MVR, but P-40s (both of those models) are faster. It's not all one-sided.

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 16
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 4:26:37 AM   
Admiral Mitscher


Posts: 122
Joined: 12/10/2011
Status: offline 		Here are my Manila fighter groups, as they were set-up before this turn. As you can see they are just average groups, but with low fatigue.

P.S Oh.... I am Rich's opponent in this pbem game.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 17
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 5:14:09 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 14890
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline 		Richard and Admiral Mitscher,

Looks like you're both on the right track. Richard: whatever you're doing has already cost these three air groups 27 destroyed a/c in a short period of time, so keep up the good work! More numbers=more betta.

_____________________________


(in reply to Admiral Mitscher)
Post #: 18
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 10:08:11 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline 		This is very good example of effectiveness of layered CAP. Sweep tends to go against group that it has best advantage against. This is usually the lowest CAP group, taking them lower than other CAP groups, who then have a chance (it's chance, not sure thing) to dive against Sweep group from above (bounce).

In this case there was 2 P-40 units probably diving against Zeros that, while having initial advantage, were drawn into fight at lower altitude. Some might even gotten low or out of ammo or damaged and aborted, thus making P-40 numerical superiority even bigger when scrambling fighters joined the fight.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 19
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 11:13:45 AM   
pditty8811

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 1/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

The first Zero Group, 17 AC, with high 70`s & 80 skill drivers, over target at 20,000 feet, get" the bounce "on Warhawks,** still struggling to get off the ground in 1 & 2`s, and from there up to altitude**, shoot down 2 Warhawks, lose 11 Zeros and pilots in a dogfight VS Warhawks with at best 60`s skill pilots.....also what`s up with "1 Zero sweeping" in the combat report.

I fAlfred wants a save he can have one to varify the Combat Report.





And your point is what?

For example what point are you making with "high 70s & 80 skill drivers". That statement has no value for these reasons.

(1) Is it meant to say that the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s? If yes they you are clearly wrong because the average pilot experience is only 62. Therefore if some of the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s, the unit must also have many pilots whose experience is in the low 40s.

(2) If the alternative meaning you intended is that they have skill ratings in the 70s and 80s, then you would have to specify which skills for they would not have those high ratings in all pilot skills. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that fighter pilots would have transport skills in the 70s and 80s plus naval torpedo skill ratings at those same high levels.

Do not confuse a pilot's experience rating with his various skill ratings. There are many level 70-80 experience pilots who posses an air to air skill rating in the 20s, or even a 20-30 defense skill rating. Use those "experienced" pilots in a sweep and they are almost guaranteed to die in their first sweep.

Even "experienced" pilots can be defeated by less "experienced" pilots, by enemy airplanes which under certain conditions possess better flight characteristics.

Others have given you quite plausible explanations for the outcome. I would particularly draw your attention to the explanation given as to how the Americans could have achieved the "bounce", an explanation which you seem to have not comprehended.

In your various posts, you strike me as one of those players, and there are several in this category, who has a preconceived view of what an outcome should be and if that outcome is not achieved, immediately blame the perceived "wrong" outcome on the engine being at fault. Never does it enter your mind that the fault might lie with you.

Alfred


Rude anyone?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 20
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 6:13:32 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Mitscher, the air skill of your squadron commanders is afwfully low.
You might want to change that depending on how long you plan to put up resistance.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Admiral Mitscher)
Post #: 21
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 6:23:25 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 4958
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		Which version are you guys using that has the squadron insigna???...LOVE IT!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 22
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 6:53:23 PM   
Harald Velemans


Posts: 263
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Art Mod. You would like to check out this link.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2405660

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 23
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 7:27:55 PM   
Halsey


Posts: 4872
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Which version are you guys using that has the squadron insigna???...LOVE IT!



Link to the bitmap download sites.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2913555

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 24
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 7:28:26 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1017
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Which version are you guys using that has the squadron insigna???...LOVE IT!


GreyJoy -

I was just gonna ask - you beat me to it!

Harald Velemans - Thank You, Sir!

Mac

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 25
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 8:32:09 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 3379
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pditty8811


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

The first Zero Group, 17 AC, with high 70`s & 80 skill drivers, over target at 20,000 feet, get" the bounce "on Warhawks,** still struggling to get off the ground in 1 & 2`s, and from there up to altitude**, shoot down 2 Warhawks, lose 11 Zeros and pilots in a dogfight VS Warhawks with at best 60`s skill pilots.....also what`s up with "1 Zero sweeping" in the combat report.

I fAlfred wants a save he can have one to varify the Combat Report.





And your point is what?

For example what point are you making with "high 70s & 80 skill drivers". That statement has no value for these reasons.

(1) Is it meant to say that the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s? If yes they you are clearly wrong because the average pilot experience is only 62. Therefore if some of the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s, the unit must also have many pilots whose experience is in the low 40s.

(2) If the alternative meaning you intended is that they have skill ratings in the 70s and 80s, then you would have to specify which skills for they would not have those high ratings in all pilot skills. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that fighter pilots would have transport skills in the 70s and 80s plus naval torpedo skill ratings at those same high levels.

Do not confuse a pilot's experience rating with his various skill ratings. There are many level 70-80 experience pilots who posses an air to air skill rating in the 20s, or even a 20-30 defense skill rating. Use those "experienced" pilots in a sweep and they are almost guaranteed to die in their first sweep.

Even "experienced" pilots can be defeated by less "experienced" pilots, by enemy airplanes which under certain conditions possess better flight characteristics.

Others have given you quite plausible explanations for the outcome. I would particularly draw your attention to the explanation given as to how the Americans could have achieved the "bounce", an explanation which you seem to have not comprehended.

In your various posts, you strike me as one of those players, and there are several in this category, who has a preconceived view of what an outcome should be and if that outcome is not achieved, immediately blame the perceived "wrong" outcome on the engine being at fault. Never does it enter your mind that the fault might lie with you.

Alfred


Rude anyone?



No. Hes just smarter than you.

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my Rising Sun game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3294296&mpage=1&key=�

(in reply to pditty8811)
Post #: 26
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 8:58:33 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline 		IMO the biggest problem is that one bad combat report seems to spawn posts claiming there is a bug or something wrong with the program. This is a game that simulates to some extend war, and in war, stuff happens. Sometimes you are at one end of the bell curve and sometimes you are at the other, and hopefully most of them time somewhere in the middle.

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 27
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 10:01:45 PM   
Richard III

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks to all who took the time to respond, both here and in PM`s and Emails, to the initial " neutral" question, with detailed information on how the A2A combat worked in this case, and how the combat reports are generated and interpreted.

The A2A model is very complex, and not always fully understood by those of us who actually play the PBEM game.

Rising questions about "results" are neither indictments of the current AI A2A model or the developers.

I`d like to especially thank my PBEM opponent Marc (Adm. Mitscher) for providing info here on his Fighter groups exp. levels. sadly , he has had to resign the Game due to just received orders for immediate deployment in support of US Army activities overseas.

He is a fine player, good sport and a gentleman.

R.III

_____________________________

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
A. Maslow

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 28
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/29/2012 11:14:48 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 14890
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510


quote:

ORIGINAL: pditty8811


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

The first Zero Group, 17 AC, with high 70`s & 80 skill drivers, over target at 20,000 feet, get" the bounce "on Warhawks,** still struggling to get off the ground in 1 & 2`s, and from there up to altitude**, shoot down 2 Warhawks, lose 11 Zeros and pilots in a dogfight VS Warhawks with at best 60`s skill pilots.....also what`s up with "1 Zero sweeping" in the combat report.

I fAlfred wants a save he can have one to varify the Combat Report.





And your point is what?

For example what point are you making with "high 70s & 80 skill drivers". That statement has no value for these reasons.

(1) Is it meant to say that the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s? If yes they you are clearly wrong because the average pilot experience is only 62. Therefore if some of the pilots are experienced in the 70s and 80s, the unit must also have many pilots whose experience is in the low 40s.

(2) If the alternative meaning you intended is that they have skill ratings in the 70s and 80s, then you would have to specify which skills for they would not have those high ratings in all pilot skills. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that fighter pilots would have transport skills in the 70s and 80s plus naval torpedo skill ratings at those same high levels.

Do not confuse a pilot's experience rating with his various skill ratings. There are many level 70-80 experience pilots who posses an air to air skill rating in the 20s, or even a 20-30 defense skill rating. Use those "experienced" pilots in a sweep and they are almost guaranteed to die in their first sweep.

Even "experienced" pilots can be defeated by less "experienced" pilots, by enemy airplanes which under certain conditions possess better flight characteristics.

Others have given you quite plausible explanations for the outcome. I would particularly draw your attention to the explanation given as to how the Americans could have achieved the "bounce", an explanation which you seem to have not comprehended.

In your various posts, you strike me as one of those players, and there are several in this category, who has a preconceived view of what an outcome should be and if that outcome is not achieved, immediately blame the perceived "wrong" outcome on the engine being at fault. Never does it enter your mind that the fault might lie with you.

Alfred


Rude anyone?



No. Hes just smarter than you.

Let's not play that game, Jeff. Alfred's last paragraph was jutting precariously into ad hominim waters and not up to his usual excellent standards.

_____________________________


(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 29
RE: A to A over Manila ? - 1/30/2012 5:13:19 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Thanks to all who took the time to respond, both here and in PM`s and Emails, to the initial " neutral" question, with detailed information on how the A2A combat worked in this case, and how the combat reports are generated and interpreted.

The A2A model is very complex, and not always fully understood by those of us who actually play the PBEM game.

Rising questions about "results" are neither indictments of the current AI A2A model or the developers.

I`d like to especially thank my PBEM opponent Marc (Adm. Mitscher) for providing info here on his Fighter groups exp. levels. sadly , he has had to resign the Game due to just received orders for immediate deployment in support of US Army activities overseas.

He is a fine player, good sport and a gentleman.

R.III


You´re welcome, please don´t stop asking questions, you might get contradicting answers on some occasions, if only because the complexity of the
game allows for it, but even then it will result in more insigt how it works, and hint you are approaching the edge of common knowledge.

I am playing the series for very long now and still learn something new every day. When you stop accepting that this happens with a game as huge
as this you start losing battles.


Sad to hear you had to quit your game with Mitscher, he looked like a great opponent and personality from what I have seen on the forums.
Hopefully you get a good replacement.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> A to A over Manila ? Page: [1]
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

0.205