RE: Air coordination in 1120b

Matrix Games Forums

Join the Matrix Team at Historicon!

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Air coordination in 1120b

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Air coordination in 1120b

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/3/2012 11:09:17 AM

michaelm

Posts: 8245
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Looking at just the PM air attack in the attacks, most of the individual raids come from differences in speed and distance that affect the time-to-target.
The most of the groups in the attack passed the command checks (that was where the bug was located) but fail the TTT check (which hasn't been touched). A few failed the command check due to leader rating, low experience and mixed HQs.
The long distance (from Australian bases) plus the speed difference add up to some scattering of the attack.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 31

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/3/2012 2:38:59 PM

obvert

Posts: 3900
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: London, UK
Status: offline

Thanks again for looking further into this.

I know it probably seems pretty simple for you looking at this example 'under the hood,' but for us when it has looked one way for so long and then is suddenly completely different it is really tough to know what to alter to get if not perfect at least acceptable coordination. With your explanation at least this opens some doors and makes the factors involved more clear for someone (like me) who doesn't have as much experience with how this works in the game engine.

I had a strong feeling based on tests that distance (and issues with speed, etc) was a major factor in getting the kind of splintering we suddenly were getting. It also confirms that HQ alignment helps as well, which in the past seems to have been a contested issue on the forum. Maybe we weren't forced to look at these things as much due to the bug you removed that made coordination work in spite of the other issues.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to michaelm)

Post #: 32

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/4/2012 8:01:15 AM

castor troy

Posts: 12020
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Thanks again for looking further into this.

I know it probably seems pretty simple for you looking at this example 'under the hood,' but for us when it has looked one way for so long and then is suddenly completely different it is really tough to know what to alter to get if not perfect at least acceptable coordination. With your explanation at least this opens some doors and makes the factors involved more clear for someone (like me) who doesn't have as much experience with how this works in the game engine.

I had a strong feeling based on tests that distance (and issues with speed, etc) was a major factor in getting the kind of splintering we suddenly were getting. It also confirms that HQ alignment helps as well, which in the past seems to have been a contested issue on the forum. Maybe we weren't forced to look at these things as much due to the bug you removed that made coordination work in spite of the other issues.

HQs may work in the beta or any of the later betas but they don't work at all in the official patch. Have spent roughly 100-120 turns H2H just looking at any difference with the only factor being changed were HQs (being at the base/not being at the base and having the squadrons set to the same HQ/not set to the same HQ). There was no difference, just like every other thing (except high experience) seems to have an influence like a baby fart and you won't notice it.

Perhaps someone has to do 5000 H2H turns to notice any statistical evidence for HQs or all the other stuff that is praised to work in terms of coordination, I say forget about it, because it is what it is, a series of strangely sized strikes that are neither realistic nor got anything to do with common sense when you see 200 bombers splitting up in 15 "waves" with only the first or second being the size of a box. BUT, it is working as designed (now that a bug was found which makes it even worse

). And it has been out there even before release when the commercials were about enhancing the strike routines. No critics, just trying to point out you shouldn't sacrifice a chicken on your desk if someone tells you it helps.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/4/2012 8:02:57 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 33

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/4/2012 11:59:31 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 4514
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

a series of strangely sized strikes that are neither realistic nor got anything to do with common sense when you see 200 bombers splitting up in 15 "waves" with only the first or second being the size of a box.

Which is almost exactly what happened IRL ... time and again. At least according to the guys that flew them. By late war, the allies had gotten coordination down to something approaching current stadards, but this is after thousands of missions. What most people overlook is that what was considered coordinated in the 40's and what is considered coordinated today ain't the same thing. Early to midwar for the allies, and entire war for everyone else, use Midway as your benchmark for coordination. That was the standard, not the exception. Those weren't green pilots, they were the very best on both sides. Several thousand hour pilots. With the influx of all the new pilots on both sides, it got worse before it got better.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 34

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/4/2012 12:37:33 PM

castor troy

Posts: 12020
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

a series of strangely sized strikes that are neither realistic nor got anything to do with common sense when you see 200 bombers splitting up in 15 "waves" with only the first or second being the size of a box.

Which is almost exactly what happened IRL ... time and again. At least according to the guys that flew them. By late war, the allies had gotten coordination down to something approaching current stadards, but this is after thousands of missions. What most people overlook is that what was considered coordinated in the 40's and what is considered coordinated today ain't the same thing. Early to midwar for the allies, and entire war for everyone else, use Midway as your benchmark for coordination. That was the standard, not the exception. Those weren't green pilots, they were the very best on both sides. Several thousand hour pilots. With the influx of all the new pilots on both sides, it got worse before it got better.

Midway? Are you talking about carrier strikes and the rest is talking about LBA strikes? When you are talking about carrier strikes, well, I am launching nearly 100% of super coordinated carrier strikes time and again with 6 and more US CVs stacked into a SINGLE TF in 42/43. These strikes consist of up to 350-400 aircraft in one strike, just like WITP style. So what? And I am surely not saying that this got anything to do with realism, just like the way LBA strikes got nothing to do with realism at all.

And re LBA strikes, I have yet to find a source that shows attacks that nearly come close to what we see in the game, not even those flown by 5th airforce with different aircraft types, at different altitudes quite early in the war. But discussing realism or what has been happening in real life is something I have been long tired of. What is going on all the time lately is all the fantasy of what you can do to get something you won't manage to do, no matter what, at least not that you would notice it when you try to test it.

It is working as designed, so...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/4/2012 12:38:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 35

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/4/2012 3:26:43 PM

obvert

Posts: 3900
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: London, UK
Status: offline

The bug Michaelm removed and which affects recent betas obviously has an effect on coordination; it is more difficult to achieve.

It seems at this point to affect LBA most. According to michaelm's note this is probably has to do with groups being in different HQs, distance and speed to target and occasionally leader strengths not passing the command check. The players who have reported on it or done tests on it show the difficulty of coordinating large strikes were all referring to LBA.

Speaking of CVs though, I haven't seen where anyone has yet tested and posted results from a sandbox CV battle using more than 2 CVs on each side using one of these betas. I posted earlier about a 2 v 2 CV battle in late 41 using the beta after the command check bug was removed. Coordination was fine in that one. As normal main body was all together in the attack, only a few fragments in the second phase of afternoon strikes if I remember.

So really no one yet knows what coordination will be like using the betas for a larger 6-10 CV per side engagement. If I understand correctly, the CV is the HQ and the fleet commander is the HQ commander, so his numbers will affect coordination. Most of the time this guy has a high level of skill in air combat. I've not tried to put a low rated commander in a CV fleet to see what happens. Maybe this would help test the check?

Maybe this pattern of individual strikes coming in after the main box is meant to replicate not only the time of the groups getting strung out but placement across a large sky field of battle? So a later fragment might not be hit by CAP whereas the earlier ones were. It surely seems like it was a choice by the developers, and maybe this choice is now coming out more clearly.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 36

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/4/2012 3:39:54 PM

henry1611

Posts: 48
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

HQs may work in the beta or any of the later betas but they don't work at all in the official patch.

From the most recent beta patch thread:

10/11/12: 1120 - Increased air hq and group leader effect on raid coordination.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 37

RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 12/4/2012 3:47:31 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12442
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

The bug Michaelm removed and which affects recent betas obviously has an effect on coordination; it is more difficult to achieve.

It seems at this point to affect LBA most. According to michaelm's note this is probably has to do with groups being in different HQs, distance and speed to target and occasionally leader strengths not passing the command check. The players who have reported on it or done tests on it show the difficulty of coordinating large strikes were all referring to LBA.

Speaking of CVs though, I haven't seen where anyone has yet tested and posted results from a sandbox CV battle using more than 2 CVs on each side using one of these betas. I posted earlier about a 2 v 2 CV battle in late 41 using the beta after the command check bug was removed. Coordination was fine in that one. As normal main body was all together in the attack, only a few fragments in the second phase of afternoon strikes if I remember.

So really no one yet knows what coordination will be like using the betas for a larger 6-10 CV per side engagement. If I understand correctly, the CV is the HQ and the fleet commander is the HQ commander, so his numbers will affect coordination. Most of the time this guy has a high level of skill in air combat. I've not tried to put a low rated commander in a CV fleet to see what happens. Maybe this would help test the check?

Maybe this pattern of individual strikes coming in after the main box is meant to replicate not only the time of the groups getting strung out but placement across a large sky field of battle? So a later fragment might not be hit by CAP whereas the earlier ones were. It surely seems like it was a choice by the developers, and maybe this choice is now coming out more clearly.

Basically you are saying what I offered in another thread on this (or heck, maybe it was a few pages back in this thread?) and what PaxMondo said a few posts ago. What we envision as coordinated is one big, cohesive block of aircraft. What IRL was considered 'coordinated' in WWII was much looser. Third comes the game engine, which tries to deal with the WWII version of 'coordinated'. As you put it, maybe some planes arrive at or near the same time but in different patches of sky and suffer from less mutual support. Maybe they arrive close enough together in time for a history to say 'coordinated' but still far enough apart for fighters to attack them separately.

So what we see in-game as 'uncoordinated' is really (often times) history's version of 'coordinated'.

BTW from what I have read and seen on TV the large raids in Europe that were well coordinated were not big lumps of hundreds of 4EBs. They were streams of squadron and group formations. Fighter attacks in different parts of the stream could not receive supporting (defensive) fire from parts of the stream miles and miles away. How should the game depict this? This is probably part of what we are seeing.

IMO.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 12/4/2012 3:48:51 PM >

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 38