Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta)

 
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 >> Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta) - 3/26/2013 2:43:07 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4717
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
Okay, the intent of this post is anecdotal evidence for MichaelM. I'm not disputing that I could have done some things differently, such as had sweeps go in first from Etorofu (they were LCAP CV's) etc. And I certainly don't think that having groups arrive without escort is such a bad dynamic as this is 40's combat. [edit] Forgot to say that the weather was a little scottish![edit2] Also, forgot to mention that Shimushiri-jima airfield has been closed for a long time, and I believe doesn't have supplies. SO, none of the flights were from there.

This just doesn't feel right though. Even though there were many incoming strikes, the allied fighters just kept on giving... My KB pilots were the original crew.

...

File available in the next post.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 3/26/2013 4:16:01 AM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java
Post #: 1
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 2:47:38 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5128
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Really bad weather!!

Have the modifiers for weather, leadership, range etc got too much control, instead of a 5% chance are they making it a 50% chance?

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 2
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 2:56:47 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14508
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Thoughts:

Where those the same Allied fighters in each combat?

How much time (probably just an internal game-engine variable) was there between combats? (i.e. was there enough time for some fighters to cycle/rearm?)

Might be best to attach a save game just in case Michael does want to look at it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 3
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 2:57:00 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
Can I ask what month this took place?

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 4
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 3:48:02 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4717
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Thoughts:
Where those the same Allied fighters in each combat?

Seem to be, although there was a morning phase, but most were in the afternoon.
quote:


How much time (probably just an internal game-engine variable) was there between combats? (i.e. was there enough time for some fighters to cycle/rearm?)

It was very close for most of them.
quote:


Might be best to attach a save game just in case Michael does want to look at it.

Yes, I intend on doing that when I locate the email.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Can I ask what month this took place?
August, 42

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 5
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 7:50:31 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
This is exactly the kind of things I have seen in the BETA. At least you got escorts for two of the fragments. Last time I tried the BETA I had a 100 plane P40 escort attach itself to a 3 plane fragment while 200 bombers went in unescorted in 15 fragments. Extreme example perhaps but it highlights one of the problem.

I really hope this is looked at because allied bomber pools can not support the increased bomber losses caused by the air coordination bug fix in the earlier versions of the BETA. It also makes the escort mission more or less superfluous forcing use of LRCAP instead. That in turn leads to even more problems...

This is a personal pet peeve I have so I´ll leave it at that and not hijack. But I think we are just scraping the surface on the many problems this bug fix has led to.





(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 6
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta) - 3/26/2013 8:25:52 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
The beta - by eliminating the coordination bug Mike mentioned - for sure introduces the art of air warfare
at a whole new level.

TBH I am not sure yet if it improves gameplay from a historical perspective, or if it makes it worse.
Currently I´d say it very much depends on the situation. A2A has always been a case of extremes when
everal dices roll against you.

There is definitely one effect that gets enhanced by another in the beta:

With the new coordination, the stone, paper, scissors A2A system comes with a boost.

Close escorts do not perform well against CAP (as was historical), but the game engine does not allow you an
alternative to close escorts (e.g. high cover) as far as naval strikes are concerned. For LBA you can use sweeps
and abstract that into high cover, naval you can´t, or not at any reliable level.

Now the weakness of close escort is increased by the new strike fragmentation.

Is it more realistic? I don´t know. It is definitely different. We have only a few CV battles to compare to, and
those could lead to varying conclusions if you only take the overall result, but not the tactical developement during
the battle - which is abstracted ingame and was extremely complex in reality, into account.

Damian, from what it looks your opponent used CV LRCAP/leaky CAP, patrolling in an alt advantage position?
If yes, that was an extremely risky move, but since it worked this had a devastating effect.

Were CAP layers higher than 14-15k involved? (layers up to 20-22k?)

Do you know the exact number of enemy flightdecks? If this all was LRCAP it sure looks like an incredibly high
number of fighters defending against the individual waves.

Do you have an estimate about how long the Allied fighter pilots already were accumulating fatigue (how long
they were operating in a high threat zone requiring high CAP percentates)? Looks like a fresh and rested result
to me, but thats just a guess.



How about using Damian´s thread, if he agrees, to post CV battle results under the new beta, so to give Michael a
chance to dig into this?
We would neeed to suppress the habit to only post extreme results and dismiss the others as 'ah, it worked for a change',
as it always distorts the overall impression.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 7
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta) - 3/26/2013 8:26:12 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9064
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Okay, the intent of this post is anecdotal evidence for MichaelM. I'm not disputing that I could have done some things differently, such as had sweeps go in first from Etorofu (they were LCAP CV's) etc. And I certainly don't think that having groups arrive without escort is such a bad dynamic as this is 40's combat. [edit] Forgot to say that the weather was a little scottish![edit2] Also, forgot to mention that Shimushiri-jima airfield has been closed for a long time, and I believe doesn't have supplies. SO, none of the flights were from there.

This just doesn't feel right though. Even though there were many incoming strikes, the allied fighters just kept on giving... My KB pilots were the original crew.

...

File available in the next post.



Was there suppose to be a save somewhere???

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 8
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta) - 3/26/2013 9:00:32 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4717
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
Yep, sorry was busy today .. thank Michael for having a look-see.

I'll comment more to LoBaron when I get home from work

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 9
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 9:06:47 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Wow, been a real long time that I've last seen so many incoming aircraft shot down but a Cap like this. I'm happy if my Hellcat Cap takes down one enemy aircraft for every 3 Hellcats being set to Cap but seeing roughly two enemy aircraft shot down for every of your Wildcats on Cap is impressing, especially with such a crappy pre warning time.

Seems like the answer for me is once again "just die rolls"... can't comment on beta patches though, still using the latest official

_____________________________


(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 10
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 1:49:32 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6817
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
So no strikes got through at all? Never had such a poor result.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 11
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 3:44:37 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 2545
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
What version are you using?

I'm using the previous beta in my Guadalcanal PBEM, and I've definitely noticed some slightly weird behavior with 30 Zeroes escorting a handful of bombers while the main body of the bombers goes unescorted. Thankfully I haven't paid through the nose for it, but if this is because of a code change rather than just bad dice rolls for coordination I think I'll have to be a lot more careful...

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 12
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 10:40:05 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2105
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
This looks very bad Damian. But the reports are cut, or ? What did your planes hit ?
The bigger raids beeing unescorted are a serious problem mostly for the jap player. Imho that change in coordination is no good thing, it is too much.
I would like to be able to set a rule "If you don´t meet your escorts at rendevous point then turn back !" instead of fly into a massacre.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 13
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/26/2013 11:12:20 PM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
Maybe use a unit commander with low aggressiveness?

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 14
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 7:02:57 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2091
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
What Air skill have those CV TF commanders?
TF commander is working as Air HQ. With low air skill coordination can be problem.

In my test games i made few weeks ago under beta i have notice huge coordination problem for LBA planes, especially when distance to target is big, but not for CV vs CV strikes (at lest not big problem in my test). Unlucky i have no reports saved.

For sure I notice problem with huge escort number flying with few bombers and major bomber group arriving unescorted. I see once 70 Zeros escorting 9 Betties and seconds later 30+ Betties attacking without escort. How it end. Many Zeros from first wave lost for nothing as 9 Betties score no hit and slaughter of all of unescorted bombers. 80 planes lost.
In summary. Coordination bomber/bomber is not big problem for me as it look realistic. Bombers should arrive in few bigger or smaller waves. Problem is with fighter/bomber coordination and how engine is choosing what wave will be escorted and whey second bomber wave will be not.

I hope Michaelm will find solution for that problem. It definitely need to be balanced.




< Message edited by koniu -- 3/27/2013 7:14:22 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 15
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 1:53:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8313
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

I hope Michaelm will find solution for that problem. It definitely need to be balanced.



Yeah, but how? It's not a trivial problem. That second strike didn't arrive in "seconds." Well, it might have, or it could have been hours later. If the escort doesn't link with the biggest group of bombers, should it go home? Or should it link with the best group of bombers it can find? WWII didn't have AWACS. Didn't have a lot of radar-controlled ground ATC. Moslty it had eyeballs, and over land it often had mountains to deal with, and low clouds. Carrier air SHOULD link up much more easily than LBA flying from different bases.

I don't have the answer, but at some point players on both sides need to let Michael put this to rest and play on. We can't excpect 21st C. levels of coordination.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 16
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 2:22:06 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Yawn time again. I've said a few words on Cribtop's AAR where this thread has been referenced.

Damian puts up an anecdotal example. He freely admits that it was not optimum praxis. He did not provide all the relevant facts; not surprising because it was only intended as an anecdote, not as a definitive statement. Others, because it reinforces their prejudices, immediately jump in expecting a "solution". They don't even bother to do their arithmetic because the headline is too good to miss an opportunity to put the boot in.

Time after time, the most vociferous voices raised against the game code are raised by players with zero or limited or inappropriate military experience. It is very rare to find serving men, particularly if they are reasonably high up the military chain, being vociferous critics of the code. I find that an extremely revealing state of affairs.

Once upon a time, when men fought using stones and sticks, battles lasted less than a day. Up to the industrialisation of war, that was largely still the situation. With industrialisation, battles are measured not in terms of hours, but in days and weeks, with interlocking battles in a co-ordinated campaign. The winning side can still have a bad day at the office, particularly when we are dealing with a game which significantly abstracts battles.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 17
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 3:25:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6817
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Yawn time again. I've said a few words on Cribtop's AAR where this thread has been referenced.

Damian puts up an anecdotal example. He freely admits that it was not optimum praxis. He did not provide all the relevant facts; not surprising because it was only intended as an anecdote, not as a definitive statement. Others, because it reinforces their prejudices, immediately jump in expecting a "solution". They don't even bother to do their arithmetic because the headline is too good to miss an opportunity to put the boot in.

Time after time, the most vociferous voices raised against the game code are raised by players with zero or limited or inappropriate military experience. It is very rare to find serving men, particularly if they are reasonably high up the military chain, being vociferous critics of the code. I find that an extremely revealing state of affairs.

Once upon a time, when men fought using stones and sticks, battles lasted less than a day. Up to the industrialisation of war, that was largely still the situation. With industrialisation, battles are measured not in terms of hours, but in days and weeks, with interlocking battles in a co-ordinated campaign. The winning side can still have a bad day at the office, particularly when we are dealing with a game which significantly abstracts battles.

Alfred


I'm not sure how this helps the players who are trying to use this thread to give more info to Michael to improve the game for all of us, either.

It's important to use examples more often that rhetoric to see what's happening here with new betas. I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term anecdotal in this case as Damian puts a lot of info up here, also posting a save to be looked at. Seems like he is interested in letting Michael have a look at what is happening. That is all. We can speculate, but Michael is going to probably find a few things that work as intended and possibly other things that don't.

I don't see anyone railing that the game is broken, the code is screwed, but a lot saying 'things have definitely changed, and how do we now react to these changes in game; what do they mean, how will they affect different situations, etc.'

Have you tried the new betas? I would really advocate that you do if you haven't, as it is a big tactical and logistic adjustment, not a simple bug fix where the implications are easy to pinpoint and understand.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 18
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 3:28:22 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
I adapt to whatever is before me. I don't demand that something be changed to my perceived view of what is correct.

Alfred

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 19
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 5:07:58 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
I'm not sure how this helps the players who are trying to use this thread to give more info to Michael to improve the game for all of us, either.

It's important to use examples more often that rhetoric to see what's happening here with new betas. I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term anecdotal in this case as Damian puts a lot of info up here, also posting a save to be looked at. Seems like he is interested in letting Michael have a look at what is happening. That is all. We can speculate, but Michael is going to probably find a few things that work as intended and possibly other things that don't.

I don't see anyone railing that the game is broken, the code is screwed, but a lot saying 'things have definitely changed, and how do we now react to these changes in game; what do they mean, how will they affect different situations, etc.'

Have you tried the new betas? I would really advocate that you do if you haven't, as it is a big tactical and logistic adjustment, not a simple bug fix where the implications are easy to pinpoint and understand.


+1

I wouldn´t bother though. Alfred has decided that the people that actually play this game should not be allowed to discuss it here on the forum. Anything that deviates from his own personal opinion of how the game is or should be is of course wrong. He just words it so full of contempt for anyone else that people do not dare to question him. Everyone should by now know that Alfred is always right and his opinions are of course absolute truths...or?

Strip away the superior attitude, fancy language and contempt for everyone else and all that is left is just an opinion. Just like everyone else has.






(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 20
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 5:35:14 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
I'm not sure how this helps the players who are trying to use this thread to give more info to Michael to improve the game for all of us, either.

It's important to use examples more often that rhetoric to see what's happening here with new betas. I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term anecdotal in this case as Damian puts a lot of info up here, also posting a save to be looked at. Seems like he is interested in letting Michael have a look at what is happening. That is all. We can speculate, but Michael is going to probably find a few things that work as intended and possibly other things that don't.

I don't see anyone railing that the game is broken, the code is screwed, but a lot saying 'things have definitely changed, and how do we now react to these changes in game; what do they mean, how will they affect different situations, etc.'

Have you tried the new betas? I would really advocate that you do if you haven't, as it is a big tactical and logistic adjustment, not a simple bug fix where the implications are easy to pinpoint and understand.


+1

I wouldn´t bother though. Alfred has decided that the people that actually play this game should not be allowed to discuss it here on the forum. Anything that deviates from his own personal opinion of how the game is or should be is of course wrong. He just words it so full of contempt for anyone else that people do not dare to question him. Everyone should by now know that Alfred is always right and his opinions are of course absolute truths...or?

Strip away the superior attitude, fancy language and contempt for everyone else and all that is left is just an opinion. Just like everyone else has.



Although Alfred has a unique communciation style there is always much to appricate in his content. I am not so sure Alfred has cornered the market on this I have been lamblasted by Damain and LoBaron for merely questioning the context for suggesting changes in the air modules, and questioning how it will affect the game. That sword goes both ways ...

The big thing I interpet from Alfred's musings is be very careful of what you ask for in a vain atempt to get the game to represent someones particular version of reality because you might get it ... .and the game might become quite unplayable .The laws of unintended consequences .. Alfred has been around since the WitP days and has that background of how the game has progressed and how these uninteded consequinces have caused great consternation .. so I beleive he is saying it might be better to adapt then make the situation worse .. at least that is what I perceive ..

I suspect Alfred is close to where Nemo was before he bugged out .. two very great minds for understanding this game but the forum is doing a good job of chasing them off ..

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 21
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 6:35:23 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6817
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I adapt to whatever is before me. I don't demand that something be changed to my perceived view of what is correct.

Alfred


I respect your knowledge and experience greatly, but I simply ask you to consider how newer players who don't have the experience that you do will react to things that have altered in betas that may one day become official patches. There is so much great stuff here, we all value incredibly what michaelm has been doing for so long. Many of us are still learning the basics of the game, and then must try as well to keep up with new additions and changes. My understanding of this tech forum is to give feedback and have discussion about any bugs and about the changes in betas and how they are working based on examples.

I haven't seen anyone 'demand' anything? To me this looks like a good discussion of different experiences based on a piece of evidence offered by a respected veteran player.

I love seeing you pop back in after an absence. Your willingness and ability to help players understand the intricacies of the game is phenomenal. I would hope you get a sense that this is appreciated, because it definitely has been for as long as I've been around. I wish we could see a a game of yours AARed and current to go over more of this stuff within the example of a strategic situation.

I personally think this bug removal and resulting lack of perfect coordination could be a good thing, especially in the endgame, but I'm not sure because I'm not playing a game using it, and I don't see the effects every day. However, advocating for less discussion about the subtleties of it and reducing the amount of players who are willing to put their opinions and examples forward can't possibly help michaelm see what is going on in their games and through their perception.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/27/2013 8:38:01 PM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 22
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 7:15:28 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Although Alfred has a unique communciation style there is always much to appricate in his content. I am not so sure Alfred has cornered the market on this I have been lamblasted by Damain and LoBaron for merely questioning the context for suggesting changes in the air modules, and questioning how it will affect the game. That sword goes both ways ...



"Unique communication" is one way of putting it. I call it ill mannered and rude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

... .and the game might become quite unplayable .The laws of unintended consequences .



That is exactly my point and have been from the first day the "air coordination bug" was found and removed. It was a major change implemented over night. I think the change will upset a lot of things in a game that has been tweaked and balanced over many years. But I was quickly declared the village idiot for raising doubt about the change. And now some more players are seeing things that might not be working very well in regards to the change we shouldn´t be able to discuss it? Because Alfred popped in and wrote some condescending nonsense?

If we are not allowed to discuss and give feedback on the changes implemented in the BETA then whats the point of them? Are we only allowed to discuss things that are working well? But ignore the things that are/might not be?

Or perhaps only a few select peoples opinions should matter? And we other shouldn´t be allowed to voice our concerns?

Sorry Crackaces if its sounds like I´m coming at you. Its not directed at you but more of a general frustration of how this forum works and the attitudes some display here.



< Message edited by JocMeister -- 3/27/2013 7:18:52 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 23
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 7:34:06 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1441
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
Michael has the save. Why don't we all sit back, and await an opinion from the guy who we all respect once he has the time to look it over

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 24
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 7:40:34 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6085
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
I've being playing with the modifications of the new patch since it came out and, for what it's worth my opinion, been very happy with it.
At the present state of things the air battles are much less predictable and so are the air to naval results.
Withthe older patch i probably would have sunk the whole Brad's CVs fleet during our CV clash and, recently, probably the whole lot of his invasion force at Saumlaki. That didn't happen because my air attacks weren't that coordinated as we used to be used to.
But is that a bad thing? Don't think so.
Wrh this new beta Rader would have never sunk 30 allied CVs in a single day....

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 25
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 7:44:50 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
Although Alfred has a unique communciation style there is always much to appricate in his content. I am not so sure Alfred has cornered the market on this I have been lamblasted by Damain and LoBaron for merely questioning the context for suggesting changes in the air modules, and questioning how it will affect the game. That sword goes both ways ...

The big thing I interpet from Alfred's musings is be very careful of what you ask for in a vain atempt to get the game to represent someones particular version of reality because you might get it ... .and the game might become quite unplayable .The laws of unintended consequences .. Alfred has been around since the WitP days and has that background of how the game has progressed and how these uninteded consequinces have caused great consternation .. so I beleive he is saying it might be better to adapt then make the situation worse .. at least that is what I perceive ..

I suspect Alfred is close to where Nemo was before he bugged out .. two very great minds for understanding this game but the forum is doing a good job of chasing them off ..



I fully aprechiate this post, and would go as far as to fully support it, even without knowing what the hell 'lamblasted' means.

Alfred has a quick mind and a huge accumulated knowledge of the game engine, and is very fast noticing complex connections between seemingly unrelated processes. His contempt in this regard is full justified.
Besides that, he is one of the few people here who are constantly aware that WitP AE requires a whole lot of abstraction.

People who comment on air coordination often do so without completely understanding what it means. The air war in WitP AE is technically point to point, but uses certain means to still display realistic air battles.

If anyone complains that a fully coordinated strike combat-resolves in packages, where a specific percentage of bombers gets completely mauled by CAP without a single escort fighter intercepting, he should think
about the following specific situation:

When a flight of 80 bombers - escorted by roughly 30 fighters - is intercepted by an equal or higher number of enemy fighters, does it seem reasonable that those 30 escort fighter are unable to cover the whole
bomber formation, and so are unable to prevent the interceptors from shooting down complete formations of the bombers without any opposition and then disappearing again?
If he answers with 'no', he has no understanding of the scale of WWII air combat and the complex situations presented to escorts in a fast moving 3D environment, and has never played a half decent
WWII flight simulation allowing such battles.

It is not only up to the escorts to provide complete protection against the bombers. If the CAP does not play their game it gets through, at least partly, without a fight.
The 8th did not fend off the majority of Luftwaffe intercepts in mid ´44 raids in most instances because they were great pilots (though many of em were). They fended off the interceptors
because they usually outnumbered the attackers 2:1-5:1 in fighters only, and because they mostly were protecting heavy bombers perfectly capable of protecting themselves alone with
some support. And even then some tactically well positioned German fighters were able to attack the bombers directly.

So if the situation is not mirroring the above strike superiority, theres no reason to expect that specific outcome.



Now, based on Damians post, the complete CAP over the transport TF was LRCAP. If this is true, the total number of fighter on CAP probably outnumbered the escorts by more than obvious
from the combat report, as LRCAP only displays the planes in the vincinity of the battle, not the total assigned to LRCAP (this contrasts with CAP, where it is exactly the other way around).
My additional assumption is that is that it engaged from a position of alt advantage (I always wondered why noone mentions on a regular basis, that carrier battle defeats are often simply
a result of the altitude chosen, but thats another story...).

Even so - Damians confirmation pending - it certainly looks like a certain percentage of DB/TBs got through and made their attack runs.

My conclusion would be, that considering the bad weather, and the fact that the CAP pilots were elite as well, that the initial setup was not exactly in favor of the strike (to use a bit of understantement).
That such a situation results in no hits is plausable even if hits would have been possible.


PS: I do think Bullwinkle hit the nail with his post as well, btw.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 26
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 8:22:22 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8313
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

PS: I do think Bullwinkle hit the nail with his post as well, btw.


Thanks. I'm wearing my Nice Guy Pants at the moment.

I'd ask everyone to step back from the line and think about things. When Michael is asked to "tweak" something, what is that? What's the baseline? When he began doing the betas the premise was he would fix bugs and add interface improvements. And he's done a boatload of both. Playing with the core air models is not fixing bugs, unless he found a bug that has been there ever since the dev team was on hand to backstop him. And if that's true then the air models are working closer to as intended NOW, and weren't before.

Coming up with a coordination model which works on land and at sea, which works from one base as well as several at once, which works at night and in the daytime, which works in good weather and bad, which works with aircraft with highly different specifications on speed and altitude capability is a monumental design and coding problem. And a model I suspect is very easy to break. And that's not including randoms, which I assume are deeply embedded.

If Michael wants to look at the save, great. That would be nice. But in April 2013 I think everyone should resist the siren song of "tweak." There's no end, but a very good chance of a crash.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 27
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 8:35:17 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6817
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

His contempt in this regard is full justified.


A lot of good info here LoBaron, thanks. However, I can't imagine why contempt is justified in relation to players discussing this game openly in a forum designed for that purpose. Disagreement is fully justified if ideas differ, but that's why we talk things out. Contempt leads off the mark and away from the subject at hand.

quote:

When a flight of 80 bombers - escorted by roughly 30 fighters - is intercepted by an equal or higher number of enemy fighters, does it seem reasonable that those 30 escort fighter are unable to cover the whole
bomber formation, and so are unable to prevent the interceptors from shooting down complete formations of the bombers without any opposition and then disappearing again?
If he answers with 'no', he has no understanding of the scale of WWII air combat and the complex situations presented to escorts in a fast moving 3D environment, and has never played a half decent
WWII flight simulation allowing such battles.

It is not only up to the escorts to provide complete protection against the bombers. If the CAP does not play their game it gets through, at least partly, without a fight.
The 8th did not fend off the majority of Luftwaffe intercepts in mid ´44 raids in most instances because they were great pilots (though many of em were). They fended off the interceptors
because they usually outnumbered the attackers 2:1-5:1 in fighters only, and because they mostly were protecting heavy bombers perfectly capable of protecting themselves alone with
some support. And even then some tactically well positioned German fighters were able to attack the bombers directly.

So if the situation is not mirroring the above strike superiority, theres no reason to expect that specific outcome.


This is exactly it. How many of us have read of the chaos of air battles and how little each side knew of the whole even after coming together to go over the details? (Or played those things out in a simulator?)

It's just a big change, and I think people need more info, but want to use the stuff michaelm has worked so hard on even if they're not so sure if they can add this particular change in an ongoing game. I get that.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 8:51:29 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Discussion!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I'd ask everyone to step back from the line and think about things. When Michael is asked to "tweak" something, what is that? What's the baseline? When he began doing the betas the premise was he would fix bugs and add interface improvements. And he's done a boatload of both. Playing with the core air models is not fixing bugs, unless he found a bug that has been there ever since the dev team was on hand to backstop him. And if that's true then the air models are working closer to as intended NOW, and weren't before.


But some big fixes inadvertently leads to game play change doesn´t it? I think all can agree on that this coordination fix has led to a very different air war? Some people love it and some people don´t. Leaving that out of it there are some big things to consider with this.

- How long has this bug been present is a very important one. I don´t think you can draw the conclusion that removing this bug have led to the air war becoming more in line with what the developers intended. Because they might have applied other tweaks and balances to the air war after the bug were introduced. So removing the bug might actually make it more removed from their intentions.

- What does this change lead to in the game? I´m not so sure having a discussion about how air war was in the real war is important. I want a game that works. No major game play changes has been implemented in a long time. Now this bug fix has led to a major change. Why are some people automatically assuming this is a good thing?

Almost everyone seems to agree this game is extremely complex and ALL changes should be applied very carefully as the consequences are very hard to predict. But when I voice concern that a major game play change has been implemented over night I´m an idiot? What?






(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 29
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 9:00:03 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14508
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Discussion!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I'd ask everyone to step back from the line and think about things. When Michael is asked to "tweak" something, what is that? What's the baseline? When he began doing the betas the premise was he would fix bugs and add interface improvements. And he's done a boatload of both. Playing with the core air models is not fixing bugs, unless he found a bug that has been there ever since the dev team was on hand to backstop him. And if that's true then the air models are working closer to as intended NOW, and weren't before.


But some big fixes inadvertently leads to game play change doesn´t it? I think all can agree on that this coordination fix has led to a very different air war? Some people love it and some people don´t. Leaving that out of it there are some big things to consider with this.

- How long has this bug been present is a very important one. I don´t think you can draw the conclusion that removing this bug have led to the air war becoming more in line with what the developers intended. Because they might have applied other tweaks and balances to the air war after the bug were introduced. So removing the bug might actually make it more removed from their intentions.

- What does this change lead to in the game? I´m not so sure having a discussion about how air war was in the real war is important. I want a game that works. No major game play changes has been implemented in a long time. Now this bug fix has led to a major change. Why are some people automatically assuming this is a good thing?

Almost everyone seems to agree this game is extremely complex and ALL changes should be applied very carefully as the consequences are very hard to predict. But when I voice concern that a major game play change has been implemented over night I´m an idiot? What?


In this context "might have" doesn't really matter to me. They can speak up and say if it does or doesn't. As far as what it has done, I am OK with what I have seen so far. Some things have been brought up which can be looked at in more detail to see if they are actual problem issues or not. That's where good, focused discussion with good data to back it up comes into play. And, certainly not least, is Michael's willingness to look at things that have a reasonable chance of being actual errors. We have all seen many examples of things that look one way in play results because of the circumstances, but were actually working correctly.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 3/27/2013 9:06:56 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta) 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

0.133