Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: 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 Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9

 
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 >> WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/12/2012 11:12:03 PM   
AdmSpruance


Posts: 2360
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline
Ive played nearly every iteration of WitP over the last 8 years and I know that there was an effort to get away from uber-CAP and make CAP somewhat "leaky".

However.....we upgraded to v1.06.1108r9 a month ago and just had our first carrier air battle.....and now it seems as if CAP is has been rendered impotent. First I had a CAP of 213 Hellcats and they barely were able to fight off 21 A6M2s and did not excecute 1 firing pass against the Bettys:


Morning Air attack on TF, near Taberfane at 82,117

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 107 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
G4M1 Betty x 27



Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 213


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 9 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 12 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 6 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Corregidor
CVE Copahee, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Altamaha, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Prince William, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk



Aircraft Attacking:
27 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
VF-26 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters to 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
13 planes vectored on to bombers
VC(F)-33 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
10 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-35 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
12 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-37 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
13 planes vectored on to bombers
VC(F)-41 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
10 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-60 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
14 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-1F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
17 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-2F with F6F-3 Hellcat (3 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
15 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-3F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
16 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-4F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
13 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-5F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
15 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-6F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
12 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-111 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
12 planes vectored on to bombers

Fuel storage explosion on CVE Copahee
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Altamaha



Initially....I chalked this result up to bad die rolls and my own rushed turn where I left sll the CAP at 31,000.



But then this happened the next turn against CAP that was layered from 31,000' all the way down to 9000':



Morning Air attack on TF, near Saumlaki at 78,117

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 111 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 38 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
G4M1 Betty x 54



Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 168


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 14 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 5 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Corregidor, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Barnes
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Long Island
CVE Nassau, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Suwannee, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Santee, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Anzio, Torpedo hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
24 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
26 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
VF-26 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
8 planes vectored on to bombers
VC(F)-33 with F6F-3 Hellcat (4 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
8 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-35 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
15 planes vectored on to bombers
VC(F)-41 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
10 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-60 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
17 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-1F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 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 21 minutes
25 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-4F with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
15 planes vectored on to bombers
VRF-6F with F6F-3 Hellcat (4 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
21 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-111 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
10 planes vectored on to bombers

Fuel storage explosion on CVE Suwannee
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Santee



Here there were only 15 escorting A6M2s....,yet my Hellcats only made 6 passes at the Bettys before A2A was through. It almost seems as if the # of fighters placed on CAP is irrelevant....it seems that A2A combat lasts for a certain period of time before the bombing starts regardlees of the # of fighters on CAP. If 200 Hellcats cant even handle 25 A6M2s.....what happens when there are 300-400 escorts and bombers involved or more? The average Hellcat pilot in this engagement had 70 exp and 70 A2A skill.



I would have liked to have tested this some more but after 2 turns Ive run out of CVEs. Has anyone seen this type of result before? Is the game WAD?
Post #: 1
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/12/2012 11:36:04 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 1925
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
In the 1st combat u had 4 fighters in the air and the time 2 intercept was 44min. But the time 2 target was 37 min. In the 2nd combat you only had 8 fighters in the air when the attack was spotted.


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to AdmSpruance)
Post #: 2
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 12:56:17 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14984
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Also the altitude is too high to be effective vs bombers at "normal" altitude for bombers - 5 - 7 000 feet. You will get very few passes before they reach release point -
because it takes time to dive so far. Try using cap for such bombers at a more normal atitutde for CAP - 10 - 12000 feet - with additional CAP as "top cover" if you have
the planes - and if you fear torpedo bombers or skip bombers - another layer down low is somewhat helpful (not that anything gets the really low level very well)

(in reply to AdmSpruance)
Post #: 3
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 2:16:08 AM   
AdmSpruance


Posts: 2360
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline
1EyedJacks.....in the first combat.....VC(F) had a time to intercept of 34 minutes, VF-35 had a time to intercept of 34 min., VF-37 had a time to intercept of 25 min., VC(F)-41 had a time to intercept o f 25 min., VF-60 had a time to intercept of 33 min., VRF-2F had a time to intercept of 20 min., VRF-3F had a time to intercept of 25 min., VRF-5F had a time to intercept of 33 min. and VMF-111 had a time to intercept of 25 min......so there was more than enough CAP present to take care of 48 Japanese AC.

el cid again.....in the 2nd turn I had my CAP layered down to 9000' with additional CAP at 20,000' and top cover at 31,000'.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 5:57:30 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
el cid is absolutely correct.

1st attack: You had your complete CAP at 31k, with this delta to bomber alt there is only a very low intercept probability. I am surprized you stilled killed as many escorts.

2nd attack: You attempted layered CAP, but it was set up ineffective. The two groups @ 31k you effectively took out of the battle,
the 3 groups @ 21 and 20k already had a bit reduced effectiveness because of the alt delta. The remaining 3 groups @ 9k were in the best position
to intercept, but were at disadvantage in running climbing attacks initially.

You always have to set up your CAP depending on your requirements. In case you need to protect shipping high alt does not make sense, you need small staggered
CAP at expected or slightly above expected inbound alt, supported by a couple of low alt patrols against sea skimming torp bombers or LowN trained mediums.

With your setup you had your intercept chances reduced to nearly 0 in the first wave, and reduced your effective CAP to 33% or 50% at best in the second.

It has been this way since initial release. One can discuss the realism of it, but I kind of like the tactical finesse the setup requires. CAP needs to adapt to threat.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/13/2012 7:15:11 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to AdmSpruance)
Post #: 5
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 7:15:02 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2869
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
It's a trade off. Fly high to get the bounce and you risk missing out on hitting the bombers, fly too low and you risk getting bounced by the escort. The trick is to find the sweet spot. We all know the dive bonus is usually the decisive factor in air combat, but it's tough to voluntarily give it up in order to get to the bombers.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 7:19:19 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Absolutely. And on land based combat I agree 100%.

The dive bonus though is only of concern when defending against sweep, and this is not something you need to pay attention to when you
are protecting shipping. There you need to kill the bombers, and according to that you set your alt.

A few squads up high can make an attack more costly and might do good work against escorts, but I would only attempt that if I got fighter
squads to spare and the rest of my CAP umbrella already looks sound.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 7
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 9:54:31 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2869
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The dive bonus though is only of concern when defending against sweep, and this is not something you need to pay attention to when you
are protecting shipping.


LRCAP is as problematic in my experience as a sweep. If used to support bomber operations at a slightly higher altitude than defending CAP they act as a quasi-escort but without the penalty. You don't have to worry about coordination because the LRCAP fighters aren't there to protect the bombers, they are there to get the bounce on the CAP. I'm seeing LRCAP being used more often as an offensive mission than defensive one and it can cause real problems to defending CAP. This is more prevalent in land based combat and trickier to pull off in naval ops, but still a problem if the enemy has enough extra air units or flatops available. If they can effectively LRCAP and escort their strike package the defending CAP is in trouble.

I may have drifted off topic with this one.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 8
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 10:22:37 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Well, its an interesting off topic.

That altitude advantage is always a factor is obvious. I was referring to AdmSpruance situation where LRCAP clearly is not an option, exactly as sweep - you
cannot LRCAP enemy fleets.

LRCAP lacks concentration of force - compared to sweep - as the number of planes available get spread over the turn instead of getting all over point at once.

# of planes available for LRCAP mission drop faster over the day than # of planes available for CAP, for reasons I guess I don´t need to explain. So in
equal force concentration situations it loses to CAP, whereas a well planned sweep might still end up winning.

LRCAP has an advantage over sweep in certain situations - usually when the numbers´ game is already won and the goal is to subdue CAP over the whole
day and to maximize attrition of the opponent. But for pilot/plane survivability in balanced situations it cannot compete with sweep. Using LRCAP instead in
such a situation is a waste of assets which increases in direct proportion to target distance.


Edit: Just reread my post, and I don´t want to leave the impression I do not agree with you. I do agree with your post, combined with bombing attacks it is
a very useful tool. It just lacks the punch and range of comparable sweeps.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/13/2012 10:39:33 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 9
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/13/2012 10:51:22 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2869
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
Totally agree. I know LRCAP isn't as effective on it's own, but in conjunction with sweeps and escorts it can still play the role of spoiler. It's all good.

I still believe the dive is overpowered, but the experience I've gained from playing for so long now and the willingness to change tactics has softened my viewpoint. What drove me to comment was not to harp on the height advantage, but rather the fact AdmSpruance had naval CAP set to 31k. The only reason for this is clearly to get the bounce, but now there is a caveat. If you want to get to the bombers at low altitude, you have to get your hands dirty and fly lower.

A good discussion.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 10
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 8:04:00 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

el cid is absolutely correct.

1st attack: You had your complete CAP at 31k, with this delta to bomber alt there is only a very low intercept probability. I am surprized you stilled killed as many escorts.

2nd attack: You attempted layered CAP, but it was set up ineffective. The two groups @ 31k you effectively took out of the battle,
the 3 groups @ 21 and 20k already had a bit reduced effectiveness because of the alt delta. The remaining 3 groups @ 9k were in the best position
to intercept, but were at disadvantage in running climbing attacks initially.

You always have to set up your CAP depending on your requirements. In case you need to protect shipping high alt does not make sense, you need small staggered
CAP at expected or slightly above expected inbound alt, supported by a couple of low alt patrols against sea skimming torp bombers or LowN trained mediums.

With your setup you had your intercept chances reduced to nearly 0 in the first wave, and reduced your effective CAP to 33% or 50% at best in the second.

It has been this way since initial release. One can discuss the realism of it, but I kind of like the tactical finesse the setup requires. CAP needs to adapt to threat.




which is of course 100% ignoring the pre warning time. None of the squadrons on Cap is taken completely out of the fight as you say, because nearly 100% of the fighters could reach the strike, regardless on what altitude they are, going with pre warning time and the time it takes 100% of the squadrons to get to the strike.

Of course we all know, there was no Allied radar, fighter direction and Allied fighters had no radios. Heck, or what side suffered from this? One can only be surprised that there are some ppl really thinking that fighters 16000 ft higher than an incoming strike would not be directed to the incoming strike when there is more than enough time to do so. Probably because they go with the logic that grounded fighters alerted to climb also wouldn't attack a strike flying at 15000ft. Heck, the grounded fighters were far too low, how could one expect to attack the incoming strike 15000ft higher than your grounded fighters? LMAO is all one can say.

As to the second strike, well, the op changed his Cap alt to a range of altitudes, which pretty much makes your comment mood it seems as he had the same result. Again, lots of fighters, lots of pre warning time. To think about Allied fighters not being directed towards the incoming strike because of altitude is plain nuts. Noone is saying all fighters would be directed to attack an incoming strike, nor all would make it in time but to say 0% could intercept because of a Cap alt of 31000ft and 33-50% in the second strike because of I don't know what?

Lol, both the Cap numbers as well as the strike numbers were pretty much realistic, the result wasn't in both cases. The only thing that wasn't realistic was the Cap alt of 31k in the first strike but that doesn't mean "the Cap was taken out of the fight" as you said.

How did Japanese strikes look like and how many fighters were the Allied able to throw up against them in real life. I put it down to bad die rolls, if it would be a consistent outcome the game should be thrown in the bin. But to stand up saying it is a spot on result is once more totally ignoring what actually happened 70 years ago and all one can tell the op is to not set all of his fighters to 31k while not even that should produce an outcome like in the first strike with such a pre warning tme.

Again, I can only tell you once more that the delta to the incoming strike is such a mood argument (coupled with such a long pre warning time without the pre warning time it might be just fine) it couldn't be any worse, because with your logic, the RAF would have never managed to attack the Luftwaffe over England because with the given pre warning time (in your world) they would not have reached the Luftwaffe to attack them. Or do you want to explain me that an airborne squadron at 30000ft directed to an incoming strike at 15000ft will not have a chance to get there with a pre warning time of over 30 min but a squadron on the ground will with the same pre warning time? Yes, it sure takes longer to drop from 31k to 15k than it takes to climb from 0 to 15k. Serious?

Again, damn bad die rolls probably. If consistent, total crap.

I do agree with you saying "one can discuss the realism of it"...

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 11
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 8:09:37 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also the altitude is too high to be effective vs bombers at "normal" altitude for bombers - 5 - 7 000 feet. You will get very few passes before they reach release point -
because it takes time to dive so far. Try using cap for such bombers at a more normal atitutde for CAP - 10 - 12000 feet - with additional CAP as "top cover" if you have
the planes - and if you fear torpedo bombers or skip bombers - another layer down low is somewhat helpful (not that anything gets the really low level very well)



which means grounded fighters could never reach strikes as soon as they would come in at 15000ft? Must be, because dropping from 30k to 15k doesn't work but scrambling does. Mhm

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 12
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 8:24:40 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
CT I agree with you that you can debate the realism of fighters not able to intercept because of wrong alt setting but ample warning. But things are like they are. It balances a game feature and as said, I like the tactical implications of that aspect of alt settings.

The OP asked for an explanation, that explanation was given.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 13
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 3:29:08 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
IMO it's very good feature. If you fly CAP too high, enemy can slip bombers underneath the CAP. Make lot of sense to this "let's fly everything at stratosphere" -crap.

I'm constantly fooling my opponent when he's flying CAP near stratosphere. Latest turn of my PBEM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 5,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 36


Allied aircraft
Spitfire Vc Trop x 32


Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 12 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire Vc Trop: 1 damaged
Hudson III (LR): 1 destroyed on ground
Boomerang C-12: 1 destroyed on ground
Kittyhawk III: 2 destroyed on ground


Airbase hits 43
Airbase supply hits 9
Runway hits 89

Aircraft Attacking:
35 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 3000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.54 Sqn RAF with Spitfire Vc Trop (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 13 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
No.452 Sqn RAF with Spitfire Vc Trop (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 13 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 37000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 14
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 4:12:08 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IMO it's very good feature. If you fly CAP too high, enemy can slip bombers underneath the CAP. Make lot of sense to this "let's fly everything at stratosphere" -crap.

I'm constantly fooling my opponent when he's flying CAP near stratosphere. Latest turn of my PBEM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Darwin , at 76,124

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 5,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 36


Allied aircraft
Spitfire Vc Trop x 32


Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 12 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire Vc Trop: 1 damaged
Hudson III (LR): 1 destroyed on ground
Boomerang C-12: 1 destroyed on ground
Kittyhawk III: 2 destroyed on ground


Airbase hits 43
Airbase supply hits 9
Runway hits 89

Aircraft Attacking:
35 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 3000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.54 Sqn RAF with Spitfire Vc Trop (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 13 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
No.452 Sqn RAF with Spitfire Vc Trop (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 13 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 37000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes




your example is perfect to show it's utter crap because unlike that you were thinking the Spitfires were at 25000ft, only two were at that altitude, while 26 of them were SCRAMBLNG, means they weren't at 25000ft but at 0ft.

Now the question would be what's better, all those aircraft actually airborne and at 25000ft to meet a strike 12minutes out, or all those aircraft sitting at 0ft to meet a strike at 3000ft 12min out. Actually, you fooled yourselve in this example IMO, even if it might have produced the result you were looking at, it didn't work for you because of the Cap settings. Real life sure would preferre the fighters airborne at 25000ft than having them grounded as it's not that hard to go down to 3000ft (guess fighters were faster going down than going up?).

Your strike showed up before the Cap could even scramble all available fighters.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/14/2012 4:15:57 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 15
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 4:16:14 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Maybe you should chill out first, and then think what you're writing...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 16
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 4:17:37 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Maybe you should chill out first, and then think what you're writing...



I don't have to chill but you might actually explain what was wrong in my example when you said your bombers got through because of the high alt Cap setting when I tell you they didn't because the strike got through because the fighters weren't even airborne.

_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 17
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 4:49:15 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2869
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
Before this thread gets totally derailed, I think the sooner people quit trying to apply "real life" to these discussions the better. CT, I totally agree with what you are saying, but your entire argument is moot. The game works the way it does...period. You can argue this and that and pick every combat report apart and find numerous discrepancies as to why something didn't happen, but regardless the game works a certain way. You either adapt to that or give yourself a coronary.

There's no right and wrong here, people's understanding of what is happening may be off because of the complexities of the routines, but we're all essentially trying to understand what is happening so we can be more effective. Getting mad at each other is completely counterproductive.

I'm not trying to get your goat here. We can all argue till we're blue in the face, but the game works a certain way, right or wrong, we just have to understand and accept that fact until changes can be made, if at all.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 11/14/2012 4:52:20 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 18
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 5:41:05 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Maybe you should chill out first, and then think what you're writing...



I don't have to chill but you might actually explain what was wrong in my example when you said your bombers got through because of the high alt Cap setting when I tell you they didn't because the strike got through because the fighters weren't even airborne.


After lot of editing you've done, your post have some points now.

quote:

I think the sooner people quit trying to apply "real life" to these discussions the better. -- The game works the way it does...period. You can argue this and that and pick every combat report apart and find numerous discrepancies as to why something didn't happen, but regardless the game works a certain way.


Exactly. That was my point. I think there is good reasons why air model works certain way.

< Message edited by Puhis -- 11/14/2012 5:42:37 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 19
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 6:21:38 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Well said SqzMyLemon.

Its interesting how often it is forgotten that WitP is a game which tries to model as close to reality - with a 2D map with no further location information than a 40nm² hex, a
high level of abstraction and a lot of crutches to simulate multitudes of situations.

The world is not made of hexfields, an aircraft increases its maneuverability when consuming fuel, a pilot uses oxygen at high altitude, identifying a contact requires more
than simple detection at range, there are more variations of landscape than 11, a 155mm arty consist of a lot of different parts, ports have more attributes than a number
ranging from 0-9, "supply" is a funny way of saying "I have no ****ing idea what that ship is carrying", bombers usually have more crew than a single pilot, runway lenght
and base size are not neccesarily related, system damage sums up hundreds of different damage categories with equally different ramifications,....eh...I just noticed I am getting boring.

Sometimes game features are just game features. And if one understands how they work they often are extremely fun in PBEM and result in one or the other
"doh this was a neat trick" situations, I am completely with Puhis on that, and I absolutely don´t care if they are completely realistic or not. The game can´t be
in all aspects. And is not required to.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 20
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 7:13:46 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1626
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
There is no need to fly CAP at 30k ft+ over CVs as they cannot be "sweeped", hence no need for the alt advantage to counter a strato sweep. I set the vast majority of my CV CAP at between 10-15k and they do just fine (remember that bomber escorts are bascially bullet sponges regardless of what alt they fly at).

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 21
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 10:42:48 PM   
AdmSpruance


Posts: 2360
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline
If the Allied player uses his USN CVEs as in RL....ie CAPing invasions of Japanese held bases....the Japanese player certainly can and will sweep the Allied CAP at high altitude.

(in reply to AdmSpruance)
Post #: 22
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/14/2012 10:54:37 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2869
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

If the Allied player uses his USN CVEs as in RL....ie CAPing invasions of Japanese held bases....the Japanese player certainly can and will sweep the Allied CAP at high altitude.


I've so far been unable to order sweep missions over my own bases, only enemy bases. Are you thinking sweeps, or escort missions that don't coordinate and are treated as sweeps and described as such in the combat reports? I've never tried sweeping an enemy fleet and LoBaron says it can't be done, so I'm curious how the enemy can sweep the carrier CAP when operating over their own base?

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to AdmSpruance)
Post #: 23
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 6:50:51 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

If the Allied player uses his USN CVEs as in RL....ie CAPing invasions of Japanese held bases....the Japanese player certainly can and will sweep the Allied CAP at high altitude.


I've so far been unable to order sweep missions over my own bases, only enemy bases. Are you thinking sweeps, or escort missions that don't coordinate and are treated as sweeps and described as such in the combat reports? I've never tried sweeping an enemy fleet and LoBaron says it can't be done, so I'm curious how the enemy can sweep the carrier CAP when operating over their own base?


This. You could Sweep after the base has fallen, but at this point the air cover should be taken over
by LBA ASAP anyway.

I have never seen a fighter sweep over enemy TFs as well. The only theoretical possibility would be
to set sweep/commanders decision and hope the dice hits a TF, if this is at all possible.
I have never seen it, and I experiemented quite a lot with commanders decision as it is a very
useful tool. So if it can happen the chances for that are extremely low.

High alt CAP for fleets only makes sense in one situation: CVE fleets located at a friendly base
hex for whatever reason. But in this situation I still would assign all or the majority of CAP
to low-med alt, and let LBA cover the upper layers.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 24
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 7:34:54 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis




After lot of editing you've done, your post have some points now.




not serious? lot of editing? but hey, nvmd, not intended to start a fight

< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/15/2012 7:36:11 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 25
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 7:41:40 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

If the Allied player uses his USN CVEs as in RL....ie CAPing invasions of Japanese held bases....the Japanese player certainly can and will sweep the Allied CAP at high altitude.


I've so far been unable to order sweep missions over my own bases, only enemy bases. Are you thinking sweeps, or escort missions that don't coordinate and are treated as sweeps and described as such in the combat reports? I've never tried sweeping an enemy fleet and LoBaron says it can't be done, so I'm curious how the enemy can sweep the carrier CAP when operating over their own base?


This. You could Sweep after the base has fallen, but at this point the air cover should be taken over
by LBA ASAP anyway.

I have never seen a fighter sweep over enemy TFs as well. The only theoretical possibility would be
to set sweep/commanders decision and hope the dice hits a TF, if this is at all possible.
I have never seen it, and I experiemented quite a lot with commanders decision as it is a very
useful tool. So if it can happen the chances for that are extremely low.

High alt CAP for fleets only makes sense in one situation: CVE fleets located at a friendly base
hex for whatever reason. But in this situation I still would assign all or the majority of CAP
to low-med alt, and let LBA cover the upper layers.



you will get a sweep over TFs if the escorts fail to link up with the bombers (you even get a message for that), then the fighters will show up on a sweep. And they will actually be on a sweep then because the performance is notably different than the known performance of escorts.

Doubt setting the fighters to sweep with commanders decision will work though.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 26
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 8:20:59 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4542
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
you will get a sweep over TFs if the escorts fail to link up with the bombers (you even get a message for that), then the fighters will show up on a sweep. And they will actually be on a sweep then because the performance is notably different than the known performance of escorts.

Doubt setting the fighters to sweep with commanders decision will work though.


Yes, they will sweep - IF they continue to target after losing cohesion and do not return to base.

But they do so they will sweep at strike altitude, since escorting fighters coordinating with a strike go in at bombers alt setting plus 2k.

If you set escort mission at strato alt you have two possible outcomes:

Either they do not participate at all, or if they do - and that chance is pretty low - your fighter alt setting will be ignored for the offensive mission.
Trying to force that does makes no sense at all, as you effectively reduce your protection for the strike - or even the chance of the strike taking place at all
against a TF with many fighters on CAP.

You wont get a stratosweep by losing cohesion, and protection against stratosweep is what we are talking about, no?

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 27
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 1:19:47 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
you will get a sweep over TFs if the escorts fail to link up with the bombers (you even get a message for that), then the fighters will show up on a sweep. And they will actually be on a sweep then because the performance is notably different than the known performance of escorts.

Doubt setting the fighters to sweep with commanders decision will work though.


Yes, they will sweep - IF they continue to target after losing cohesion and do not return to base.

But they do so they will sweep at strike altitude, since escorting fighters coordinating with a strike go in at bombers alt setting plus 2k.




no, they will sweep at the altitude they were set to, no matter what altitude the bombers were set to (escort). Example: have your bombers at 10000ft, your fighters at 30000ft. Your fighters will miss the bombers and the fighters will fly onto the target, showing up as "sweeping at 30000ft". Not here to start a fight but what you describe is just not happening in the game, at least in none of the versions I have been playing over the last years.

If I don't forget I will post a combat report next time it happens in my game.


edit: just remembered my game against Rainer79 when I had my carriers very often in range of targets that were attacked by LBA and me being pissed off by my Hellcats trying to escort LBA strikes (and 100% missing them) with my fighters always showing up over the target shown as "xy Hellcats sweeping at x altitude" - and the altitude always was the escort/Cap altitude the fighters were set aboard the carriers. Never ever been the bombers' altitude plus 2k.

Same goes for land based fighter squadrons that miss the bombers they were assigned to escort. And that's the only way I know of sweeping naval targets. As a workaround to get that "feature" you can have several bases in range of a naval target, some of the bases having bombers and fighters, some of the bases only fighters. All fighters set to escort and you have a fair chance that some of the fighters that aren't at the bomber fields will miss the bombers they try to escort (if the fighters fly) and end up sweeping the CV Cap.

edit 2: just wanted to dig up my AAR of the game against Rainer79 but the AAR section ends at page 8 which means everything before some time in 2011 is gone.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/15/2012 1:26:50 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 28
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 2:53:36 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

edit 2: just wanted to dig up my AAR of the game against Rainer79 but the AAR section ends at page 8 which means everything before some time in 2011 is gone.


Display topics from last: All topics



< Message edited by btbw -- 11/15/2012 2:56:49 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 29
RE: WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 - 11/15/2012 3:00:16 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

edit 2: just wanted to dig up my AAR of the game against Rainer79 but the AAR section ends at page 8 which means everything before some time in 2011 is gone.


Display topics from last: All topics





hey that's great. thanks for the info, will have a look

_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> WHAT HAPPENED TO CAP IN v1.06.1108r9 Page: [1] 2 3 4   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

0.125