Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Exercise in frustration - No obvert please

 
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 >> Exercise in frustration - No obvert please Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 9:10:20 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
**************************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************************************


For the third time now my opponent decides to expose parts of the KB to my LBA. And for the third time my anticipated strike doesn´t happen. Only one group out of five decides to take off. Of course its one of the DB groups that gets completely annihilated. Only positive thing is that this is the first time I get anything to take off at all.

I get no explanation from the game whatsoever. Neither in any of the reports nor in the replay itself. This is starting to p**s me off pretty badly. Is it me that has done anything wrong with the settings or is it just the game that again kicks me in the scrotum?

The screen is two days after the strike and I have moved some units around. But they were all stationed at the same base with a AirHQ, level 8 AF, 200AS (about 150 needed) and a crapload of supplies. KB was detected 6 hexes away by Cats. Settings remains the same on all units.









Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 9:44:54 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6217
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Usually it's very difficult to launch LBA strikes against the KB. I think they have to pass a double check...something like that...in order to get the sprit to face the mighty CAP of the KB...
What you'd need is to provide a HUGE escort for your LBA bombers...in that case the bomber guys may decide to take off

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 2
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 10:02:48 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
GJ, Thanks for the answer. If that is actually the case I think its pretty FUBAR. Why should the KB get an extra dice roll for safety? He only had about 90 Fighters on CAP. All were crappy M5 Zeroes. Had my whole strike went in I´m sure most of the bombers would have gotten through.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 10:09:25 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
It's strange that one squadron flew... What was detection level of KB? I suggest you put those bombers flying search, at least 10 %. That might help.

But like GreyJoy said, it might be hard to get LBA strike against strong carrier TF.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 4
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 10:09:40 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
GreyJoy is right. I dont have access to the manual atm, but for a coordinated strike to launch against
a target you need something like 25% of the expected fighters on CAP duty. Otherwise the chance
is next to nil.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 5
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 10:25:28 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Puhis, I´ll try to set them on 10% search from now on. Detection was pretty good with 3 detected CVs and some other shipping like BBs and TKs.

LoBaron, He had 112 AC show up for CAP. My intended escort was 49. So that is closer to 50% but still no luck As I wrote earlier this is the third time this has happened. First time I had close to 200 AC set to escort but all AC just sat there watching the KB go by...


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 11:02:49 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6217
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Puhis, I´ll try to set them on 10% search from now on. Detection was pretty good with 3 detected CVs and some other shipping like BBs and TKs.

LoBaron, He had 112 AC show up for CAP. My intended escort was 49. So that is closer to 50% but still no luck As I wrote earlier this is the third time this has happened. First time I had close to 200 AC set to escort but all AC just sat there watching the KB go by...




I feel your pain, but it's always been like that. However i think it's also related to the experience of the groups... early on the Japs manage to get some Netties to launch against the allied CVs just because their experience is very very high AFAIK...

But agree with Puhis... always set ALL your group to 10% naval search..it helps a lot

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 7
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 1:47:14 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7106
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
According to the "Leaders" info I have, it states that your Air HQ needs your leader to have High Air Skills. Similar to what you look for in your CV TF.

quote:

• Level Bombers must pass three tests before flying an offensive mission. Each test failed reduces the number of aircraft flying by 25%:

o Experience test.
o Test against the leader’s Air Skill.
o Morale test.


Like others have stated, you 'may' have not had enough fighters to pass the various test to get everybody to fly.


_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 8
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 1:56:04 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6000
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
One reason might be also that 2 of those units are Replenishment groups, not combat groups. Thus, you probably had only 21 fighters flying escort, which is nowhere near the amount needed for attack to launch (IIRC, you need 30% of enemy CAP).

_____________________________

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


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 9
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 4:07:41 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 828
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
So, no Search precentages in bomber groups and five airgroups belonging to three different HQs. I guess it equals to lack of intelligence sharing about KB's postition and no coordination during the airstrike.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 10
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 4:31:55 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18133
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Can you show us an image of the base from which these planes were to launch? That may help identify base-specific issues for their failure to launch.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 11
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 7:20:29 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Can you show us an image of the base from which these planes were to launch? That may help identify base-specific issues for their failure to launch.


Nevermind. I obviously cant read :(

< Message edited by Gräfin Zeppelin -- 10/12/2012 7:22:08 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 12
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 7:54:48 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
To me, the most frustrating thing about their not flying is the lack of feedback from the game engine. With no messages at all, it is almost voodoo trying to figure out the reasons.

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 13
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 8:01:02 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Michael, I had about 45% of his CAP set to escort!

Sardaukar, AFAIK replenishment group takes part in combat as any unit. I have used this unit for sweep on many occasions.

Yaab, There was a discussion about detection a while and I think it was confirmed that the source of the detection is irrelevant. As long as it is detected is does not matter what detected it.

Chickenboy,

Here is a screen of the relevant stuff! Not the best air leader but still an average one!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/12/2012 8:03:31 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 14
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 8:20:15 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

To me, the most frustrating thing about their not flying is the lack of feedback from the game engine. With no messages at all, it is almost voodoo trying to figure out the reasons.


+1

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 15
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 8:45:26 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 828
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
So, only the airgroup subordinated to USNAirSoPac flew. Do you have other air HQs at Luganville?

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 16
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 9:44:16 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
One thing I forgot to mention is, you said KB stayed 6 hexes out. IIRC 5 hex range is exactly the dropoff threshold
reducing chances of naval attacks.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 17
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 9:53:28 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
The two DB squadrons both had experience less than 60. That's not very good, which may also explain their reluctance to go up against the highly trained Japanese carrier fighter pilots.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 18
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 10:32:02 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18133
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Michael, I had about 45% of his CAP set to escort!

Sardaukar, AFAIK replenishment group takes part in combat as any unit. I have used this unit for sweep on many occasions.

Yaab, There was a discussion about detection a while and I think it was confirmed that the source of the detection is irrelevant. As long as it is detected is does not matter what detected it.

Chickenboy,

Here is a screen of the relevant stuff! Not the best air leader but still an average one!


Well, I think it's probably *not* a/f supply, overstacking, lack of aviation support and any runway / service damage.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 19
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/12/2012 11:01:01 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6000
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Probably many factors and bit of bad luck.

_____________________________

"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 #: 20
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 6:23:51 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Yeah, I guess its a combination of stuff. Still sucks when it happens three times in a row.

I wonder i Yaab is on to something? I did some testing of coordination a while back with Sweep/LRCAP/Ground attack. My conclusion then was that it didn´t matter what AirHQ the units were attached to as long as there was a air HQ present. Maybe thats not true for naval strikes?

If thats the case and with the PP system we are stuck with it pretty much sucks...

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 21
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 7:19:22 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
You were bound to come tho the wrong conclusions as neither sweep nor LRCAP(why test that?) coordinates. Sweep has specific similar
attributes that makes it possible to orchestrate a couple of units, but this is not equal to coordination. Ergo there is no HQ effect whatsoever,
except for number of planes per mission (the HQ mission bonus).



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 22
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 8:33:37 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Ah, it was rather the coordination/combination between Sweep and LRCAP I was testing. I have had some "issues" with LRCAP. Mainly the fact that quite often the LRCAP fails to show up at all even though they have accumulated fatigue. It seemed like the chances of LRCAP showing up with the sweep increased with a HQ present but I noticed no difference whether or not the units had the same HQ or not. Also didn´t seem to matter if the HQ the units were attached to were present or not as long as any HQ was present.

I didn´t pay too much attention to it at the time as I was trying to test if there was any possibility whatsoever to get sweeps to coordinate.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/13/2012 8:34:49 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 23
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 8:55:57 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
It seemed like the chances of LRCAP showing up with the sweep increased with a HQ present but I noticed no difference whether or not the units had the same HQ or not. Also didn´t seem to matter if the HQ the units were attached to were present or not as long as any HQ was present.


Those tests are very difficult to analyze.

Just an example based on your test conditions:

The simple presence of an HQa increases # of planes available for offense missions (in this case sweep) by 25%
At the same time an HQa usually has organic aviation support, increasing the repair and turnaround rate of LRCAP planes.
Last, the presence of an HQa also speeds up fatigue recovery of pilots.

So, completely without any relation to coordination factors you increase your chances of having LRCAP and sweep missions over target
at the same time, simply because more planes/pilots can be put into the air.


Tests concerning the (air) combat model require a very thorough pre-analysis to estimate all potential (side)effects of different ingame mechanisms on your test
results, and a very clean test setup to exclude as many of those as possible.
Otherwise you come to wrong conclusions pretty fast. Thats why there are so many different urban legends on the forums from time to time.

(Just to be sure, don´t view that as critizism, just as explanation )

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 10/13/2012 8:59:05 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 24
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 9:28:51 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
LoBaron,

This is what I did:

I simply made a small scenario with 2 bases. One allied with two 25 plane units, a HQ and BF with 90 AS. One Jap with a similar setup.

I then just used the editor to change HQ, remove HQs, change missions, altitude and whatnot. I did about 10 runs per "setup" What I should have done is taking note on what happened at each instance. Could have been useful to have the notes now!

I did learn some valuable stuff though! Probably common knowledge on the forum but its always more fun to find out for yourself if you have the time. I learned that sweeps doesn´t coordinate. Ever.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 25
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 11:37:29 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
This looks like a good sandbox, JocMeister.



Still, do not underestimate how many details you need to address before you can
safely assume that the results you see are related to the question you raised.

Taking your sandbox as an example we could raise the question whether units assigned
to the same HQ have an increased chance of coordination.

For this we need to reduce the impact of other factors adverse to or supporting coordination
to an absolute minimum. This is quite a lot of work, and usually more as is invested in such a test
- which again leads to false results.

Lets see what needs to be done (from the top of my head, so I can surely leave something out):

- Your sandbox with the option to either use a 90 AS baseforce or an HQa with the same AS
- A level 9+ AF to minimise any adverse impact from AF. This must be a constant.
- A target at normal range, I would chose something in the 4-5 hex range. This must be a constant.
- Two squadrons of the same plane model to eliminate coordination factors like plane type, service and cruise speed
(e.g. 2 B24D1 units)
- Standard altitude for the tests, e.g. 10000ft
- Normalized peader attributes (all values at 50)
- Normalized pilot attributes (all values at 50)
- Normalized unit Morale (99) and fatigue (0)
- Normalized HQ attributes (leaders, exp,...)
- No CAP over target (because otherwise seemingly uncoordinated attacks could be a result of the CAP, not the strike)

Then you need to accept that there are some random factors you cannot influence completely:

- Weather
- Random skill/morale/exp increase/decreases
- Random plane crashes, maintenance...

These factors can influence your results at random, the only way to eliminate them as a factor is:
do as many testruns as possible.

This is not close to everything but you get the picture.

Now you need to decide what you want to observe. Based on the above question I would try something like this:

Test 1:
HQ present, all groups set to the present HQ

Test 2:
HQ present, all groups set to a different HQ

Test 3:
HQ present, groups set to variing different HQs

Test 4:
HQ absent, all groups set to the same HQ

Test 5:
HQ absent, groups set to variing different HQs



Then you need to formulate your expected result considering HQ assignement influences coordination.
(what difference you expect to see between the different tests)


And finally you need to be aware that the coordination factor you are researching is one of about 12-14
all influencing coordination, enanced by a couple of randoms.

So you need the delta between the different tests to be extremely small, I´d expect it to be a lot smaller than
uncoverable by 10 consecutive testruns in each test. Probably about 40-50 repetitions for each test are required
to be able to draw conclusive results.


That stuff is often underestimated and done wrong (e.g. looking at results before previousely formulating expectations), not only here but all
around the world. Thats why so many crap statistics are produced every second and fed to the public, having no significance at all.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 26
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/13/2012 2:30:55 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5767
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Why should the KB get an extra dice roll for safety?


They don't. IJ has the same issue with LBA against allied CV's. Read SML's previous AAR. He had the exact same outcome several times, and was equally frustrated.

As IJ you can't send Netties (or Helens) against the allied CV's without escort. And if you are counting on using escort from your carriers in between (which I see IJ players attempt time and again), the probability of coordination is low which means the strike won't likely happen. So for IJ, who doesn't have P-38's , it is very difficult to use Netties against the allied CV's, and only to a max range of your Zeros which isn't that far.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 27
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/14/2012 6:37:44 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5075
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

This looks like a good sandbox, JocMeister.



Still, do not underestimate how many details you need to address before you can
safely assume that the results you see are related to the question you raised.

Taking your sandbox as an example we could raise the question whether units assigned
to the same HQ have an increased chance of coordination.

For this we need to reduce the impact of other factors adverse to or supporting coordination
to an absolute minimum. This is quite a lot of work, and usually more as is invested in such a test
- which again leads to false results.

Lets see what needs to be done (from the top of my head, so I can surely leave something out):

- Your sandbox with the option to either use a 90 AS baseforce or an HQa with the same AS
- A level 9+ AF to minimise any adverse impact from AF. This must be a constant.
- A target at normal range, I would chose something in the 4-5 hex range. This must be a constant.
- Two squadrons of the same plane model to eliminate coordination factors like plane type, service and cruise speed
(e.g. 2 B24D1 units)
- Standard altitude for the tests, e.g. 10000ft
- Normalized peader attributes (all values at 50)
- Normalized pilot attributes (all values at 50)
- Normalized unit Morale (99) and fatigue (0)
- Normalized HQ attributes (leaders, exp,...)
- No CAP over target (because otherwise seemingly uncoordinated attacks could be a result of the CAP, not the strike)

Then you need to accept that there are some random factors you cannot influence completely:

- Weather
- Random skill/morale/exp increase/decreases
- Random plane crashes, maintenance...

These factors can influence your results at random, the only way to eliminate them as a factor is:
do as many testruns as possible.

This is not close to everything but you get the picture.

Now you need to decide what you want to observe. Based on the above question I would try something like this:

Test 1:
HQ present, all groups set to the present HQ

Test 2:
HQ present, all groups set to a different HQ

Test 3:
HQ present, groups set to variing different HQs

Test 4:
HQ absent, all groups set to the same HQ

Test 5:
HQ absent, groups set to variing different HQs



Then you need to formulate your expected result considering HQ assignement influences coordination.
(what difference you expect to see between the different tests)


And finally you need to be aware that the coordination factor you are researching is one of about 12-14
all influencing coordination, enanced by a couple of randoms.

So you need the delta between the different tests to be extremely small, I´d expect it to be a lot smaller than
uncoverable by 10 consecutive testruns in each test. Probably about 40-50 repetitions for each test are required
to be able to draw conclusive results.


That stuff is often underestimated and done wrong (e.g. looking at results before previousely formulating expectations), not only here but all
around the world. Thats why so many crap statistics are produced every second and fed to the public, having no significance at all.


If I ever find the time again to do it over I will certainly try and follow what your wrote! Since the baby arrived spare time have been...scarce!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 28
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/14/2012 9:08:15 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
If I ever find the time again to do it over I will certainly try and follow what your wrote! Since the baby arrived spare time have been...scarce!


Congrats! And no worries, I know what you are talking about...mine is 10 weeks old now. Expect your PBEM strategic plans to look a bit more...erm...erratic...



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 29
RE: Exercise in frustration - No obvert please - 10/14/2012 1:09:46 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5767
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
If I ever find the time again to do it over I will certainly try and follow what your wrote! Since the baby arrived spare time have been...scarce!


Congrats! And no worries, I know what you are talking about...mine is 10 weeks old now. Expect your PBEM strategic plans to look a bit more...erm...erratic...



Hey, Lo, didn't know you also just became a Dad. CONGRATS!!!!!



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Exercise in frustration - No obvert please Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141