Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air war improvements

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Air war improvements Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 8:40:55 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5322
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
We have got the Great Wishlist Thread, but I would like to know your opinions about the air war.

What functionalities and features we should introduce to make the air war better to play for you?


Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Post #: 1
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 2:53:02 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3495
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
if it ain't broke, don't fix it

The only thing I can think of is in the reports on air action the previous turn. The map should scroll to highlight the player's air unit involved for the action, with a line displayed from airbase to hex where the action took place.

An example: UK tac bomber group strikes Antwerp, and gets intercepted (successfully or unsuccessfully) by a German fighter group.

The report for the UK player shows a line from the tac bomber's airbase to Antwerp, with the report on the results of the action.

The report for the German player shows a line from the intercepting figter to Antwerp, with report on the results.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 2
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 5:52:46 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
" if it ain't broke..." This is mostly working pretty well.
I agree there are lots of things I would tweak before messing with the current air rules.

As gwgardner states reporting is one area where the system is weak (not just for air actions) results should show as strength points not 'planes' and all results including intercepts (including CV intercepts).

The air vrs sea rules are a bit broken. but perhaps that should be a different discussion (IMO naval rules need MUCH more attention than the air rules)
As far as I can tell the more ships in the target zone the more hits you can get. Air units would concentrate not distribute attacks, going for the kills not dinging up a bunch of units. If found CV would be targeted exclusively. But of course they would be deployed back and harder to 'get at'. A single TAC strike can do 20 points against a bunch of ships but NEVER sinks a single BB. These turns are a week. If a TAC unit found just one BB not a fleet it would savage it in hours not weeks. For example in one game I have an Italian air unit which spent 6 MONTHS striking at the Russian fleet in the Baltic every turn (not exactly the South Pacific) and has had minimal effect (The fleet is isolated without a port as Leningrad fell so is presumably getting fuel and ammo and perhaps HIDING in Stockholm) A large German Fleet with a CV also can't seem to chase down this phantom fleet either...

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 2/19/2012 5:58:50 PM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 3
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 6:22:22 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
I can't resist just another comment re Air Vrs Sea...
The 'Epic' (they made a movie )Bismark engagement with its long chase involved very few aircraft (never more than 20 at one time) and was over in a single ToF turn (Bismark departs Bergen 21 May... Sunk 27 May) Surface engagements were usually decisive. Ships staying in port covered by AA and friendly Fighters as the Tirpitz did lived longer (eventually sunk by aircraft in 1944 while in port), those that engaged usually either killed or were killed. (or as the Bismark showed a bit of both...)

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 2/19/2012 6:32:42 PM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 4
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 8:33:24 PM   
FieldOfGlory


Posts: 188
Joined: 1/13/2012
From: Utah USA
Status: offline
I agree with all of the above.

The air war works pretty good.

As far as air vs naval goes I would say that also works pretty well except for when the tac's or CV's are attacking a small fleet. If the fleet only has a couple of ships the pilots all of the sudden can't seem to score a hit anymore and ships can survive repeated air attacks for months on end. that would somewhat realistic if they were attacking a couple of subs but not a surface fleet.

In my perfect world a small fleet would be harder to detect with air recon but once found it would not be too hard to take out within a couple of turns(exception subs). As far as large fleet attacks go it makes sense to me that air attacks would deal out more damage in a target rich envirment so IMHO that part of the game is right on. Except to say that air assets that attack a large fleet should be subject to greater losses than air assets attacking a small fleet.

< Message edited by FieldOfGlory -- 2/19/2012 8:35:39 PM >

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 5
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 8:35:25 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 892
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline



Let's see... Bismark and Prinz Eugen sail out...entire British fleet moves out to find it. That turn it is sunk. Seems to work in the game too.

Seriously though, a battle like that is too small to be used as a design tool. The Hood was sunk by a fluke. That first engagement should have been damaged british ships, and a sunk Bismark.

But I do agree that Naval combat seems to anemic.

SO I copied the Grand Campaign folder. Changed the Info.ini file which contains the scenario description so that I know it is my changed scenario.
Changed in the consts.ini file:

[NavalBattle]
EngagementChance=30 I changed this number to 50

and under:

[MaximalDamageDealtByNavalUnits]
UnitType40=5 I changed to 10 so it is possible for a carrier to sink another carrier. (and damned likely to sink another ship outright)
UnitType41=4 I changed to 8 so a BB can get a lucky kill on another BB.

UnitType 42 is cruisers.
UnitType 43 is Subs
UnitType 44 is Transports
UnitType 45 is Invasion Transports

I left those alone.

So far I have also left the [MinimalDamageDealtByNavalUnits] alone as well.

Oh, and as a smaller force would probably run the moment it thought a bigger fleet was coming, I upped:

[ShipRetreats]
RetreatChanceOfSuccess = 25 to 50.
RetreatWithStrengthPercentageLowerThan = 40 I have so far left alone..might change it to 75

Now Naval combat is more common, usually with ships getting heavily damaged, especially when they are a smaller force.Since


Despite what you may think emotionally, not a lot of ships were sunk during the war by aircraft. Actually, most ships sunk (warships) during WWII in all theatres was by submarine. I will look at the .ini file and see what parameters can be changed though.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 6
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 8:44:17 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 892
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Hmm..what I would like to do is make detecting fleets harder, but when they are detected have some nasty decisive battles most of the time. And subs should be hard to detect but easy to sink. The battle of the atlantic was really a technological war between detection and non detection...the actual battles were usually short and not in the subs best interest. Btw I feel the Germans won this technological war with their last generation of Subs, but the war was over too late for them to do anything.

Looking at the Event Methods, it should actually be possible to simulate this see-saw tech battle by changing parameters.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 7
RE: Air war improvements - 2/19/2012 8:53:35 PM   
FieldOfGlory


Posts: 188
Joined: 1/13/2012
From: Utah USA
Status: offline
Well most warships that were sunk by subs were sunk in stealth attacks. I'm pretty sure that a lot more ships were sunk by air attacks than by surface engagements. Surface engagements were rare since the Germans and the Italians were not willing to take on the RN in a straight up fight. THEY WOULD LOSE And they knew it. The kreigsmarine would not park a large surface fleet off the coast of England and tell the british to bring it.
The pacific was a little different. Surface engagements were more common but Air still ruled the sea. A CV task force could turn back almost any fleet before they got close enough to engage in a surface battle.

Guess what I'm saying is that if the germans park a surface fleet off the coast of England and the britts send out a fleet to engage, it should gett messy real fast and the better fleet should win and the loser should be forced to retreat from the sea zone.

< Message edited by FieldOfGlory -- 2/19/2012 8:57:06 PM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 8
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 4:42:28 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
That's not what I have seen. I have seen Large (Home Fleet) fleet attacks on one or two raiders repeatedly including CV strikes with no effects for many turns in several games.... Or one lucky TAC strike inflicts 25 hits on a large fleet (half strength TAC unit...) Naval rules look to me like buying lotto tickets where odds were not published. Who knows what will happen. This and convoys are weakest aspect of the game. Another example is an isolated in fleet in Baltic attacked for 31 turns by larger GE fleet (with a CV) and an Italian TAC air with a few breaks for the TAC to be repaired. It is still there perhaps hiding in Stockholm). Fleets coexist in sea zones with raiders (surface raiders) for several turns usually no effect and YES I have engage set to ON. I am aware that aircraft were sinking most ships which makes the relative ineffectiveness of UK CV units worse not better. Bottom line is naval engagements were decisive and ships were usually sunk. Surface actions in ToF look like boxing matches between well padded toddlers. And aircraft use pillows not torpedoes. This is seriously broken.

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 2/20/2012 4:47:56 PM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 9
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 5:02:23 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
I agree it should get messy fast. (Pretty much my whole point) The Bismark was damaged in the initial surface action (It wasn't indestructible it could have gone the other way right then and there) and of course the Hood was destroyed. These these things resolve in minutes and hours not the six months I have been shooting at the USSR BB hiding Baltic. I have read many accounts of surface actions and air attacks on Naval units during WWII they were VERY violent. I agree if a ship or Sub is not spotted it doesn't tend to get sunk (or even shot at...) nearly all actual engagements (even at night) resulted in sinkings. The seafloors of the world are littered with the tragic evidence... Ironbottom sound for example. The German and Italian Navy units which survived for any length of time were hiding in fortified ports with dedicated fighter cover not out fighting. (the Tirpitz had dedicated CAP all the time in Norway but was sunk in port anyway.
quote:

ORIGINAL: FieldOfGlory

Well most warships that were sunk by subs were sunk in stealth attacks. I'm pretty sure that a lot more ships were sunk by air attacks than by surface engagements. Surface engagements were rare since the Germans and the Italians were not willing to take on the RN in a straight up fight. THEY WOULD LOSE And they knew it. The kreigsmarine would not park a large surface fleet off the coast of England and tell the british to bring it.
The pacific was a little different. Surface engagements were more common but Air still ruled the sea. A CV task force could turn back almost any fleet before they got close enough to engage in a surface battle.

Guess what I'm saying is that if the germans park a surface fleet off the coast of England and the britts send out a fleet to engage, it should gett messy real fast and the better fleet should win and the loser should be forced to retreat from the sea zone.



_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to FieldOfGlory)
Post #: 10
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 6:02:54 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 892
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Actually, the Bismark was untouched in the surface engagement. The British wern't even shooting at it, as they thought the leading ship (Prinz Eugen) was the Bismark, as they assumed the lead ship would be the Battleship. Later a carrier plane got a hit on the stern of the bismark, jamming it's rudder.


The way Naval combat seems to work in the game is if you are set to engage, each ship has a 30% chance of forming into a fleet for combat. So if you have 10 ships, 3 of them should fight.

The combat damage compared to the hp's is fairly light, so in that round, a carrier can inflict between (inclusive) 2 to 5 hps of damage. A BB from 1 to 4, and a cruiser from 1 to 3 damage. Since the hitpoints are 10, 8 and 5 respectively, it means only a Cruiser can be sunk by a carrier in a lucky hit.

Of course, if the other side is on Engage as well, then the process is repeated with the other side. If one side is set for Raider then only one ship will fight, not the whole fleet.

So a small fleet will take a long time to find the enemy, and will take multible rounds to sink a ship.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 11
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 7:15:28 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
The Bismark engagement is a bit small and there were some significant luck factors (the nature of a naval engagements during WWII however) it is however the ONLY time a front line BB was sent out to raid. Either the German command were cowards (not much evidence for that...) or perhaps they realized it was totally crazy dangerous, practically suicidal. If the UK sends its fleet to the med leaving the Atlantic wide open they could have come out to play (and thus kept the RN occupied) The game should reflect this and does not. The record is pretty clear re land based air (mostly from the Pacific). Stay away from it if you want to live unless you have CAP. Subs were no exception to this. LiquidSky has a few good mod ideas, but re retreat chance, effectively against a CV you just cannot run away from something with equal speed MUCH longer reach and likely spots you first anyway. LOTS of evidence of what happened when a naval air wing finds unsupported surface units... They killed them, almost every time and quickly.

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to FieldOfGlory)
Post #: 12
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 7:38:53 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
The demise of the entire IJN is pretty well documented... Killed by aircraft for the most part when and where found. Plenty of original source material available. Naval aviation was absolutely lethal during WWII against surface targets.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 13
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 7:54:57 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Subs were pretty good against combatants as well particularly if not effectively countered (note IJN was virtually defenseless vrs subs compared to RN in Atlantic no escort carriers or significant air ASW assets) US Subs pretty much wiped out the IJN merchant marine and destroyed more combat ships than anything other than naval aviation.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 14
RE: Air war improvements - 2/20/2012 8:24:43 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 410
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Actually the Bismark was damaged by naval gunfire in the initial engagement and leaked a trail of oil had fuel shortage to deal with in its attempt to escape....

"Hood opened fire at 05:52 at a distance of approximately 26,500 yd (24,200 m). Holland had ordered firing on the leading ship, Prinz Eugen, believing from her position that she was Bismarck. Holland soon amended his order and directed both ships to engage the rear ship, Bismarck. Prince of Wales had already correctly identified and targeted Bismarck, whereas Hood is believed to have continued to fire at Prinz Eugen for some time."
- Wikipedia Article

"The first shell caused negligible structural damage. The second shell struck the port side of Bismarck somewhere below the 320-mm main side belt in compartment XIV (in way of the fore bridge tower). This shell defeated the side protective system and exploded against the 45mm torpedo bulkhead. Fragments from the explosion penetrated the bounding bulkhead of the portside cable ways and the main transverse bulkhead between the forward port turbo-generator compartment and the port boiler room. The turbo-generator room quickly filled with water. The boiler room flooded at a much slower rate through tears in welded seams in the main subdivision bulkhead. These leaks were controlled by plugging the torn welds with canvas hammocks.7 The eventual loss of power from two boilers in the port boiler room reduced the battleship's maximum speed to 28 knots, still marginally better than that of the pursuing British ships.

The third 14-inch shell, which passed through the 60mm splinter belt well forward on the port bow and above the armor deck, dramatically changed the course of the Bismarck's mission. Compartments XX and XXI in the bow were totally flooded with a mixture of oil and seawater. As the manifolds for the fuel distribution system were located in one of the flooded compartments, Bismarck was suddenly deprived of the use of more than 1,000 tons of fuel oil. The shell passed completely through Bismarck without exploding, but the holes it left were some 850mm in diameter and below the bow wave with the ship trimmed down by the bow. After voids were counterflooded aft, these holes were covered with sail cloth. We could not detect either of these shell holes in the photography brought back by Dr. Ballard in 1989 because Bismarck is imbedded in sediments up to her design waterline.

Bismarck took a 9-degree port list and a trim down by the bow of 2 meters. The loss of more than 1,000 tons of fuel was by far the most critical consequence of this battle damage. Fuel tanks had been contaminated by sea water, and the fuel distribution system forward had been seriously damaged. The access trunks to the manifolds in this area were also flooded.

Although the Germans were able to localize the damage caused by the two underwater shell hits, flooding in the affected compartments was permanent and had to be countered by flooding port voids aft in the area of the steering gear rooms to reduce trim and list." -From Bismarck's Final Battle by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr.



quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Actually, the Bismark was untouched in the surface engagement. The British wern't even shooting at it, as they thought the leading ship (Prinz Eugen) was the Bismark, as they assumed the lead ship would be the Battleship. Later a carrier plane got a hit on the stern of the bismark, jamming it's rudder...


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 15
RE: Air war improvements - 2/21/2012 2:17:58 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 892
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Yup..my bad. For some reason I was thinking it was the Prinz Eugen that was hit. Ah well..it was years since I studied the battle.

I remember having an arguement a few years back with a friend who mistakenly believed that Naval air was the big ship sinker of wwII...when we leafed through his wwii stats book, every time we looked at a Jap carrier it almost always seemed to be sunk by a sub. On another note, I was amazed to read what lengths they went to, to protect the CV's from air. They would build phoney towns on the deck, or trees to disguise the ship from the air.

Your graph does tell a compelling story...over double tonnage sunk by sub. Even though american torpedos sucked for the first half of the war.

I always meant to figure it out for the european theatre but never got around to it.

Retreating from naval combat in the European theatre was as simple as getting back under your Air Umbrella. But from a game point of view, it is better for the player to decide what to do with his badly damaged fleet rather then have the enemy just sink them all. The retreated fleet can either repair (over weeks) and come back out for more, or the player will just call it a day and park them in port. I seriously doubt that any engagement between the Italian navy and the British would have been decided in one battle during a week.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 16
RE: Air war improvements - 2/21/2012 3:35:31 AM   
FieldOfGlory


Posts: 188
Joined: 1/13/2012
From: Utah USA
Status: offline
Love those stats JLPOWEL. Thats great sfuff.

And I to agree that the Naval war between the RN and the Italian Navy should not be decided in 1 battle. But if the Italian Navy parks 2 cruisers off the coast of Alexandria in Raiding mode and the RN sends out A large fleet many times the size of the smaller Italian fleet to engage. The 2 Italin cruisers should not be able to stay there for many months evading the RN and meanwhile sinking every convoy that comes there way.

IMHO

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 17
RE: Air war improvements - 2/21/2012 8:19:42 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5322
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
I'm going to implement convoys screening for 1.02 or 1.03, so if you will keep your ships on the convoy route it's going to be harder to hunt and hit them

(in reply to FieldOfGlory)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Air war improvements 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

0.098