Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Transport interception

 
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 >> Transport interception Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Transport interception - 6/20/2013 10:53:59 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
This is of course my own personal opinion. Curious to hear what others think but I find this highly annoying.

Right now its completely risk free to transport in or out troops as long as an enemy base is longer than 3 hexes away. Its seems the effect of LRCAP vs Transport completely dies down after those 3 hexes. Personally I feel sending unescorted transports in to pick up or leave troops should be a very tense and nervous moment? Its also very easy to reinforce bases under attack despite hundreds of fighters on LRCAP as long as the closest enemy base is 4 hexes or longer away. There should at least be some kind of random factor involved. I don´t like the fact that once 4 hexes away you know it will require CV support (if applicable) to stop reinforcing or withdrawal.

I also feel that once intercepted transports should suffer huge losses to simulate complete lack of guns and the exposure when landing, taxing, picking up/leaving. Even a few fighters could probably wreck a lot of havoc among transports circling, taxiing, landing, taking off or simply being parked at the runway.


Post #: 1
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 11:12:29 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 493
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
+1

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 2
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 11:17:19 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7209
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

This is of course my own personal opinion. Curious to hear what others think but I find this highly annoying.

Right now its completely risk free to transport in or out troops as long as an enemy base is longer than 3 hexes away. Its seems the effect of LRCAP vs Transport completely dies down after those 3 hexes. Personally I feel sending unescorted transports in to pick up or leave troops should be a very tense and nervous moment? Its also very easy to reinforce bases under attack despite hundreds of fighters on LRCAP as long as the closest enemy base is 4 hexes or longer away. There should at least be some kind of random factor involved. I don´t like the fact that once 4 hexes away you know it will require CV support (if applicable) to stop reinforcing or withdrawal.

I also feel that once intercepted transports should suffer huge losses to simulate complete lack of guns and the exposure when landing, taxing, picking up/leaving. Even a few fighters could probably wreck a lot of havoc among transports circling, taxiing, landing, taking off or simply being parked at the runway.



Just hit the runways they're flying from! Oh, wait ...

Seriously though, wouldn't a lot of this happen at night or in dusk or early hours of the day?

At the same time transports cannot be intercepted en route they can be nailed 'on the ground' even though their flight time for some of the journeys they would have to take would encompass all daylight hours plus a few in the night, so they wouldn't have been there at all to get bombed. There are inconsistencies on both sides of the coin, but this does work the same for both sides, so not that big of a deal really.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 6:14:34 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7235
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Two items. Even at long range I get the "transports intercepted" message numerous times which indicates that the transports are disrupted and some are turned away.

In addition, I don't think you understand the difficulty holding effective cap over a target 200 miles away. Even with hundreds of fighters it would be impossible to keep a base closed.. Transports did fly at night you know. In spite of the very cLose range and total air supremacy, the Russians were not able to stop German transports flying into Stalingrad. Catching transport over a far off base in the Pacific? Would have been more lucky than anything.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 4
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 6:58:31 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Two items. Even at long range I get the "transports intercepted" message numerous times which indicates that the transports are disrupted and some are turned away.

In addition, I don't think you understand the difficulty holding effective cap over a target 200 miles away. Even with hundreds of fighters it would be impossible to keep a base closed.. Transports did fly at night you know. In spite of the very cLose range and total air supremacy, the Russians were not able to stop German transports flying into Stalingrad. Catching transport over a far off base in the Pacific? Would have been more lucky than anything.


Well, lets agree that we disagree?

I don´t think you understand the difficulties of getting 100 transports to fly from Base A to Base B, land in good order, get loaded, take off and then return to Base A? Right now its entirely possible to do this, day after day with almost no losses and (as long as an enemy base isn´t closer than 3 hexes and its not C47s) absolutely risk free. Absolutely NO risk of getting jumped by a roaming fighter squadron. Zero, zip, none.

Yes, you do get the message but it doesn´t mean anything. I was able to airlift out the entire 1st Marine division right under the nose of KB (1 hex away) without any problems. I got 15 of those messages per turn but they still got airlifted out for the price of a few CATs over a few days. Sounds reasonable?

I´m not saying the base should get completely closed off from transports. But there should at least be a chance of transports getting intercepted and shot down. And this chance shouldn´t magically disappear at 4 hexes. As it is now its way to easy and way too risk free. If I put 1000 fighters on LRCAP over a base 4 hexes away could we at least agree that its quite likely that any transports flying for that base should probably end up quite dead? Or that if any kind of interception would take place it would mean a lot of dead transports?

Besides in the real world there would be a chance to intercept the transport both on the way there and the return leg. This should be simulated by an increased chance to intercept them at the actual base in game

PS, Its not like the Germans airlifted the entire 6th Army out now did they? We are talking about a very limited number of transports for a very short period of time at sporadic interval. Not 50 transports coming and going day after day after day.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 6/20/2013 7:06:33 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 7:44:33 PM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 493
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
Its the random 3 hex thing that I don't understand.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 8:13:40 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Well, in relation (about Stalingrad), this might help:

http://www.joelhayward.org/stalingradairlift.htm

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 7
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 8:15:26 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4588
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
TBH I think it is relatively plausable that it is difficult to intercept transport planes arriving one by one throughout a day, at low level, trying to use natural obstacles and clouds as cover, with LRCAP from bases > 120nm away. This also might be part of the rationale for the inability to intercept.

Personally I am ok with this limitation, as transports are vulnerable units anyway, in general suffer from high ops losses, and are unable to lift heavy equipment.

More so, I absolutely dislike the thought of the alternative: that it is possible to completely choke air supply simply by stacking LRCAP over an enemy base from bases far more than a hundred miles away. Thats even more unrealistic, and much more harmful to gameplay IMHO, as it would render one of the rather common uses for transport planes in WWII practically impossible.

And finally, your 6th army comparision is severely lacking.

- The Red Army Airforce had operational fighter bases as close as 10nm from Stalingrad but still was unable to interdict transport flights into and out of the pocket completely.
- The air evacuation, except for transport of wounded began much too late in the battle, where attrition of air and ground personell was already over the limit, and SU air superiority over the area practically continuous.
- We are talking about an army of about nearly 300000 men, the equivalent of 15+ divisions in WitP AE. Thats a completely different scale. Still the Luftwaffe evacced 42k troops over the duration of several weeks.

Your opponent is not moving that scale of troops around by air, guaranteed. Live with and think of a counter rather than complain.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 8
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 8:49:48 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Well, opinions are like... everyone has one including me. And I still stick to mine.

Speaking of plausibility...is it plausible that beyond a certain range its 100% guaranteed safety? Absolutely NO chance of intercept? Its 100% (or at least 99,9999999%) safe. If it was outside the physical ability for the "intercepter" to get to the actual point of intercept I can understand it. But its not.

I never said I think it should be change from one extreme to another (completely closing a base).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
I´m not saying the base should get completely closed off from transports. But there should at least be a chance of transports getting intercepted and shot down.


There should be some chance of intercept and it should definitely not be at a pre set distance. And an intercept should mean a chance for dead transports and a chance of losing whatever is being transported. I absolutely agree closing a base should be virtually impossible and I also absolutely agree that the longer the distance the less chance of an intercept. But the chance should be there as long as the base is within LRCAP range and it should also be dependent on the actual number of planes doing the LRCAP.

Also, I didn´t bring up the 6th army comparison...


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 9
RE: Transport interception - 6/20/2013 10:13:52 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4588
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
The problem is, opening that possibility opens the path to abuse. This is what I was - unsussessfully it seems - trying to hint at. If the option for long range intercepts with a certain success probability is enabled, and does not get a hard cut at a specific point, the probability simply can be increased by massing LRCAP over target.

With the current game mechanics achieving target LRCAP saturation is pretty easy. Someone like you, who loves to complain about the possibility to `abuse` LRCAP as bomber escort, should know best.

This will lead to unrealistic situations, more unrealistic than no TR kills further out than 120nm from base of origin. You know well that the game engine has certain limitations, maybe such a limitation ruled out different solutions. I doubt that the decision for a hardcut at 3+ hexes was just an oversight, rather I think it was done on purpose. Not that I care.

I do not expect to change your mind. You knew that range limit for months already.

It is difficult to discuss a topic rationally when a thread was not opened to discuss a game aspect as a neutral observation, but because an opponent is not playing in accordance to the player´s favourite script, which can be, thats understandable, annoying.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 10
RE: Transport interception - 6/21/2013 6:17:06 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Since when do I "love to complain" about the LCRAP abuse and what does that have to do with it?

I still stand by my opinion. Just as you will stand by yours. There is no need for the snide remarks. They add nothing to the discussion and are quite unnecessary.


< Message edited by JocMeister -- 6/21/2013 7:06:45 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Transport interception Page: [1]
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078