Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nik Mod 4.0

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Nik Mod 4.0 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/4/2005 9:44:49 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Scheduled to be released tonight baring i find any last minute things to correct. (and they always have a nasty tendancy to crop up!)

Here is the list of changes from the FAQ

Version 4.0

1. Aircraft gun device change. Reduced gun accuracy by 50%. Purpose:

Several objectives were desired with this change in combination with previous mod version a2a tweaks.

a. Reduce air to air bloodiness in particular vs. the 1st class/modern/mainline gun armaments for Japanese and Allied planes, specifically the Browning 50cal six-pack and the typical cannon/MG armaments of the Japanese fighters. Coupled in particular with good/high experience these load outs tend to be 95% lethal to most anything, armored or unarmored with a DUR of 60 or less. Even higher Dur planes tend to get the chop more often than one might expect/want

b. In conjunction with the above, it further reduces the exponential effect of large air combats as the reduced Acc values decrease the tendency for successful fire pulses (i.e. the planes mvr for position more but don’t achieve a fire solution)

c. A major dissatisfaction I have had has been the lack of distinction between the performance of unarmored planes vs. armored/protected planes in the game since UV days….in particular the 1st gen Japanese tactical aircraft vs. the 1st generation USN tactical aircraft. Essentially, there’s no appreciable difference. Zeros or other high gun value Japanese planes can down an F4F or SBD with the same tendency (per fire pulse) as an F4F or similarly heavily armed Allied fighter can down a Zero or Val. (same can be said of a Betty vs. Peggy) This is mainly due to the high lethality of the modern gun value packages of the front line fighters. This change in conjunction with another 4.0 adjustment below attempts and if testing is any indication, largely resolves this complaint. Players should no see a substantial difference in durability under fire thus producing the historical situation between these planes more. A Zero (or an Oscar) with a good pilot will probably hit more often but his KILL results (vs. a Damage result per “firing pulse”) will be more weighted toward the latter while in the case of Allied firing against unarmored planes, they will tend to hit less often but when they do it will more often result in a KILL.)

d. Elimination of the "Uber CAP" effect

The combo of changes mostly eliminates the "CAP shield" effect of large CV (and land based) fighter concentrations. This means that KB (and USN later war TF's to a degree) can no longer sail around the map with near impunity and expect to repel air attacks with the older predictability. Tends to make CV engagements more nail biting and less one sided. Allied players please note however....its still not a good idea to attack a full str KB with all those Kate bombers....they tend to sink CV's.....also beware the Zero bonus.

“Firing pulse” is defined as the graphical representation in the game of a plane “firing” at its target during the a2a animation which either gives you a red KILL or a yellow DAMAGE

**

2. reclassification/adjustment of armor value for planes. All fully protected planes (self sealing tanks and armor plate) have a rating of 2. (a couple planes are given a 3 for increased resistance to represent their extreme toughness. By themselves, armor values of 0-2 don’t really impact the kill/damage ratios from a percentage viewpoint)

In conjunction with the Dur and aircraft device changes, this makes protected planes (i.e. Allied and 2nd generation Japan) much more resilient under fire.

3. Heavy Flak adjustment

Increased slightly after further calibration tests using BTR. Purpose remains the same, to encourage and in some cases force players to bombard land bases at reasonable and/or historical attitudes.

4. OOB tweaks.

The following aircraft received specific attention.

a. Spitfire (IX/Vb) and Hurricane Range increased to 4/5 (Normal/Extended)

After spending 3 hours trying to figure out how “Endurance” is calculated in the game and after researching the web and comparing ranges using BTR, settled for this general setting. Hey! It beats relegating the planes to point defense as was the case with the old Ki-27 version.

a. TBD. Range increased to 3 / 4 (normal/extended) After wrestling with the issue of the UK fighters, my thoughts turned to the TBD. Given that the current endurance ratings prevent this plane from almost ever flying a mission unless the TF is in question is one hex away (with a torpedo) it made sense to me that this plane should be allowed to accompany it’s stablemate on a 180 mile (3hex) strike as it did at Coral Sea and Midway.

Don’t thank me Allied torpedo plane fans……the plane remains hideously vulnerable (no armor or self sealers could be installed due the fact that the plane could barely wobble to 14,000 feet with it’s torp as is) but at least now while the Zeros are whittling away at them, this will leave more SBD’s to survive to bomb enemy flight decks.

c. Ki-61

Changed to Ic variant debuting 9/43.

I was dead set against deploying multiple versions of this plane. Besides, players now have a fightable Oscar and Tojo to tide them off before this cannon armed variant becomes available. Mvr increased a bit to allow it to better compete with the ubergunned P40E

d. Ki-44

Slight mvr increase, given a “centerline” (i.e. more accurate) 12.7 pattern armament. Will allow it to better compete with the P40 as well as face the bombers that will come calling on Japan.

K-84Ic. - speed bumped up a little to account for more powerful (if tempermental) powerplants.

5. Japan pilot replacement Tweak

Army pool replacement lowered to 30
Navy pool replacement lowered to 20
Navy pool starting value changed to 500 from 1000

Due to user feedback and PBEM testing, + to account for the reduced bloodletting of the newer mod = less dead pilots. There was also concern expressed that combined with a China train methodology was producing too many good pilots well into 43. This aspect remains an ongoing test case.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 10/4/2005 10:07:08 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/4/2005 10:53:07 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
Excellent stuff. I particularly like the reduced Acc of aircraft weapons.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 2
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/5/2005 5:39:15 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Nik Mod 4.0 officially available now. The zip has been emailed to Spooky for replacement of the older version on his fan site.

Also available via email lansoar@hotmail.com

I'm very very excited about this mod version. I truely think that people will enjoy this version and find that it produces plausible results in combat!



Note: last minute changes.

Wirraway armor increased from 0 to 1 to represent the retrofited/makeshift efforts to add some integral protection to the plane's design (i.e. "boiler plate" armor as with the F4F-3's early war that had not yet received their official upgrade kits)

Corrected one of the Liberty class AK's loadout. (Thx Ckk for alerting me to it)

Feedback always welcome and highly anticipated.




_____________________________


(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 3
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/5/2005 5:42:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
For Fans of Andrew Brown's map.......Andrew has graciously volunteered to convert my mod to work with his map. Stay tuned for it. Much appreciated as I am frankly too exhausted to do it myself at this point.



_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 4
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/5/2005 8:48:56 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
Sounds really really amazing.
Next pbem i'll use your mod Nik!



_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 5
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/6/2005 12:35:11 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline
How about CHS integration? Does it work with it?

_____________________________


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 6
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/6/2005 3:46:55 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4902
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

How about CHS integration? Does it work with it?


I don't think Nikademus is planning to use the CHS OOBs. I am thinking of suggesting the addition of some of Nik's ideas to CHS or a CHS derivative, but I don't know which ideas, if any.

I have also completed a conversion of Nik Mod v4 for use with my map. It is available on my scenarios page

Andrew

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 7
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/6/2005 4:19:56 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

How about CHS integration? Does it work with it?


Have not idea. My understanding of CHS is that it is a straight out OOB mod. My own mod contains its own fair share of OOB modifications.



_____________________________


(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 8
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/9/2005 5:12:24 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Should be up on Spooky's site in a short bit

Per the FAQ below:

Version 4.1

heavy ship DP and AA weapons had accidentally had their effectiveness ratings increased by another 50% from stock scenario vs. the intended 50% increase in order to compensate for the increase in plane durability introduced with 1.0 Fixed.


(translation: Nik was a dumbass but now he knows why Japanese TF's with BB's in them were blasting SBD's out of the sky like they were Vals! )

Look for a major new version again soon. There's ASW code changes coming. What that will mean for this mod is still being determined since the tweaks are not done yet.


_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/9/2005 12:21:46 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
Nik Mod 4.1 is now available at the Spooky's

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 10
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/9/2005 3:05:09 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4902
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spooky

Nik Mod 4.1 is now available at the Spooky's


I have also uploaded a conversion of Nik Mod 4.1 (for my map) to my WitP website.

Andrew

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Spooky)
Post #: 11
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/10/2005 1:58:06 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6942
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel/Bulgaria
Status: offline
I think that in 4.0 the F6F Hellcat modded durability was still original 30 something instead of 48 (?, cannot remember now) like Hellcat II. I might have misread it, though. It'd be bit imbalancing if true.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 12
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/11/2005 8:41:12 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
You didn't mis-read it. OOB error. Fixed.

4.2 hot off the presses from Oahu to Spooky.

thx



_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 13
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/11/2005 9:02:16 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
Now uploaded

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

You didn't mis-read it. OOB error. Fixed.

4.2 hot off the presses from Oahu to Spooky.

thx




_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 14
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/12/2005 1:15:44 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
Nik, with this speed your mod become maybe not best, but surely the one highest numbered version mod of WitP :P

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Spooky)
Post #: 15
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/12/2005 3:09:57 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4902
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
I have converted version 4.2 for use with my map and uploaded it to the Scenarios page of my website (see sig).

Andrew

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/12/2005 8:20:59 PM   
KDonovan


Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
Hey Nik...this question actually goes back to mod 3.0...it states that you have greatly improved the power of 3in (76.2mm) AA guns and above......does that mean the US AA-units with 75mm guns didn't get such an increase in power??

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 17
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/13/2005 11:08:15 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Yes, the US 75mm's got the increase as well as did the Japanese version (though the US version will benefit more)



_____________________________


(in reply to KDonovan)
Post #: 18
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/15/2005 5:35:20 PM   
Accipiter

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
Seems like I read somewhere that with this mod there is a mandatory house rule of max altitude of 25k for bombing. Is this still the case with 4.2? Or was it ever the case?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 19
RE: Nik Mod 4.1 - 10/15/2005 10:32:28 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Yes, for fairness sake, players should not bomb above 25,000 feet because no AA guns can fire beyond that range. Not much can be brought down at such height anyway.

_____________________________


(in reply to Accipiter)
Post #: 20
Flak effect on DB & TB - 10/21/2005 2:46:49 AM   
Woos

 

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
Could it be that you went a bit overboard with the flak. Turn 1, KB bombards Manila harbor. Result:

Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52
 
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 52
D3A Val x 101
B5N Kate x 143
 
Allied aircraft
no flights
 
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 8 damaged
D3A Val: 6 destroyed, 68 damaged
B5N Kate: 10 destroyed, 73 damaged
...
Aircraft Attacking:
15 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
15 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
25 x B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
15 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
24 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
24 x B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
17 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
17 x B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
15 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
17 x B5N Kate bombing at 11000 feet
25 x B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
24 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
25 x B5N Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet

Note that first turn surprise was switched on and all losses/damage are by flak. And this is one of the not so bloody results. I tried it several times and normally the DBs have a loss rate of 10% to 15%. But at least it solves the question if one should stay for a second wave.

Basically your Flak height patch seems to mean that DBs and TBs (as they tend to torpedo instead of bomb) become useless (or more correctly: show Kamikaze tendencies already in 1941). Apart from hitting the Japanese more than the Allies (which rely more on Level Bombers where the bombing height can actually be controlled) this makes CVs much less powerfull. Why should the Allies fear the KB. As long as they keep their ships out of reach, nothing too bad can happen as attacks on land targets become prohebitively expensive.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 21
RE: Flak effect on DB & TB - 10/21/2005 5:11:26 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Its hard to say without more information on the attack. An outright loss of 16 tactical bombers against a large city/base of itself doesn't strike me as unreasonable but i realize your saying this was one of the more anemic results. In comparison, with suprise initially (little/no return fire) 29 tacticals were lost over Pearl...most of them to AA. Brings to mind some old warships1 discussions on the subject of AA. There were some learned individuals who felt that without suprise, such a concentration of AA might have produced prohibitive losses. Much was made of the condition of the surviving aircraft that returned to KB afterwards (i.e. the "third strike" argument) needless to say, opinions varied.

The flak changes are primarily tuned to produce more realistic results and play in regards to the Level bombers which do the lion's share of the base smothering in the game. Dive bombers do get the shaft a little bit because they bomb at 2000 feet by default in the game. Similar situation 'can' occur for TB's but setting the bombing height higher will reduce their losses. I have also found that hitting a base from the sea (if possible) will also greatly reduce flak effectiveness due to disruption.

A challenge that i've grappled with in Witp is that i'm trying to represent the overall effect of flak including operational losses. As the game stands now, op losses are under-represented by necessity to preserve pilot lives. Coupled with generally anemic land flak this allows players to bomb at ridiculously low heights on a continuous basis with acceptible loss/damage ratios and acceptble morale levels (unless bombing under 6000 feet) The low heights give the largest return in hits, which in turn smothers the base which in turn accelerates the pace of the game.

Try these same tactics using a game like Bombing the Reich and you'll get a completely different experience. The actual losses 'over' the base might not always greatly exceed witp's results but when combing the op loss/crashes of damaged planes as they struggle back to base or while landing at the base can increase the losses by 100%. (a recent low alt foray against a suspected occupied enemy airfield using A-20B's by me highlighted this starkly as Speedy can attest)

Does the tweak make a carrier group like KB less 'effective' in terms of hitting land bases? To a degree yes, but not across the board. Flak concentrations must be fairly high to produce a prohibitive effect and intially, for both sides this cant be done everywhere. the potential for an area being heavily protected by both flak as well as fighter defenses will force a player to more use their carriers more conservatively. I dont see that as a bad thing.

Thx for the feedback.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 10/21/2005 5:36:08 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Woos)
Post #: 22
RE: Flak effect on DB & TB - 10/21/2005 11:33:00 PM   
Woos

 

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
Well, I ran a few more tests. I found out that the sudden low kill ratio was due to ordering Baby-KB to bombard Manila before KB (and suffering a kill ratio of ca. 35% in that). So after some changes, here 5 runs KB against Manila (run 1 & 2 were with the Baby-KB):
Run	3	4	5	6	7
Involved planes							
Zeros	52	52	52	52	52
Val	126	126	126	126	126
Kate	143	125	143	143	143
Destroyed							
Zeros	3	5	2	5	4
Val	6	16	9	11	14
Kate	4	7	13	6	6
Damaged							
Zeros	9	16	15	10	6
Val	69	68	69	66	67
Kate	41	34	52	51	38
2 Flights of Zeros strafing rest Escort & Sweep
6 Flights Vals go in 11000-13000 feet
6 Flights Kates go in 9000-11000 feet (but some torpedo instead of bomb)
Coming in from 3 hexes to the east of Manila
AI-Hard

I wouldn't agree that Manila is heavyly AA defended (just look at US West Coast or Pearl Habor). It simply has 26x75mmAA. And all are fireing happyly at the DB at 2000 feet (and the TB at 200feet should they torpedo).
So to give those poor DBs and TBs a chance at their (not changeable) low heights I changed the database in such a way that the AA coverage hole is back in (i.e. I set the following devices to a ceiling of 28000: 275,276,294,410,412,414-416; to 26000 feet I set 409&413 and to 25500 feet device 411). Then new scenario start and results are nice:
Run	1	2	3	4	5
Involved planes					
Zeros	57	57	76	76	76
Val	126	126	126	126	126
Kate	143	143	143	143	143
Destroyed					
Zeros	0	0	0	0	2
Val	10	1	4	6	4
Kate	5	0	2	3	2
Damaged					
Zeros	3	2	1	4	4
Val	38	48	48	42	43
Kate	29	27	22	22	34
Vals now all on 12000 feet
Kates now all on 10000 feet (to speed up set up)

Seems to be much more reasonable to me. Losses about 1/3 of what was before (damage still high but that probably needs to be that way so that LB get enough damage to lower moral).

With a house rule of no bombing capable plane (also FP and Patrol) between 3000 and 7000 feet (exclusive) and no plane above 28000 this should work much better than the old DB-killing setup.

Only problem now: Do I really want to do all the first turn setup again? :-(

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 23
RE: Flak effect on DB & TB - 10/21/2005 11:56:02 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Hi Woos.

Thx for the information. I have to still say though, that these losses, while a little on the high side for a couple of the tests, are still not all tha bad when you take into consideration that it is not just the 26 heavy guns that are firing. If you are port attacking you are also having to factor in the AA of the ships in the harbor as well as well as any other types of land based AA.

I'm showing loss %'s of 4, 9, 7, 7 and 7. The Japanese historically bombed Manila and Clarke from a height of around 23,000 feet.

The House rule idea is one avenue to go and is certainly valid. However from an "official" standpoint i'm not comfortable with such a restrictive rule.

Can you run your test again and set the Zeros to no strafe and set the TB's to high altitude? 20,000 feet for example.



_____________________________


(in reply to Woos)
Post #: 24
RE: Flak effect on DB & TB - 10/22/2005 12:25:40 AM   
Woos

 

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

If you are port attacking you are also having to factor in the AA of the ships in the harbor as well as well as any other types of land based AA.

Yes, but notice the difference reeabling the AA coverage hole has. Many of the kills must come from the 75mmAA (and the 4 3inAA guns of the base force).

I'll try with 20000 feet but that looks more like LB heights to me (and won't help DBs nor TBs/Bettys/Nells that decide to torpedo).

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 25
RE: Nik Mod 4.0 - 10/22/2005 12:46:34 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14224
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I think this was one reason why historically LBA didnt torpedo ports the AA was pretty nasty.

I think of Malta and the heavy losses suffered by the Stukas trying to get to Illustrious in the harbour.

DB's and TB's because they have to attack at Low Level will get crucified if the flak is organised

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
AA Gap and DBs - 10/22/2005 1:13:02 AM   
Woos

 

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
OK now with all planes at 20000 feet. First without AA gap
Run	1	2	3	4	5
Involved planes					
Val	126	126	109	101	126
Kate	143	143	125	116	143
Destroyed					
Val	8	12	9	6	12
Kate	6	6	5	6	5
Damaged					
Val	66	56	52	64	59
Kate	29	21	38	38	48
No AA coverage gap					
All fighters set to escort				
All planes set to 20000 feet

and then with AA gap
Run	1	2	3	4	5
Involved planes					
Val	126	126	126	126	126
Kate	125	143	143	143	143
Destroyed					
Val	2	1	2	3	2
Kate	2	3	2	4	5
Damaged					
Val	49	26	36	32	21
Kate	14	15	17	21	17
AA coverage gap back in					
All fighters set to escort					
All planes set to 20000 feet


Overall losses are a bit less. But as far as I see the relative difference in losses between AA gap and no AA gap is even bigger when flying in at 20000 than if flying in at 12000 (especially for the DBs). Since LBs can be easily set to 20000 whereas DBs will always drop down (and TBs sometimes) removing the AA gap really hurts the DBs and the TBs much more than the LBs.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 27
RE: AA Gap and DBs - 10/22/2005 2:11:47 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
ok. home now.

Manila's actual defenses are:

26 x 75mm
8 x 3in DP/AA
3 x 40mm
3 x .05
(+ ship AA)

That makes 34 heavy AA guns or about 3 batteries worth. (in my interpretation and in the mod, a decent defensive shield)

Your tests showed between a 5.1 -6.3% loss rate. With the heavies silent - 1.4 - 2.6%

quote:


Since LBs can be easily set to 20000 whereas DBs will always drop down (and TBs sometimes) removing the AA gap really hurts the DBs and the TBs much more than the LBs.


Yes, it will hurt the DB's and TB's more, particularily the unarmored Japanese types. This is an acknowledged con in order to promote a better overall LB experience (without having to institute a house rule prohibiting bombing at low level) However as stated, I dont consider these losses 'overly' excessive given the number of weapons present, esp when factoring in that some of these "flak" losses as listed by the game can be considered write offs or ditchings while returning to base. US planes tend to be tougher and face less capable flak models.

Ironically, a test I ran gave me higher losses (27 tacticals)

However to balance this; I achieved the following:

Allied Ships
SS S-40, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AVD Childs, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Shark, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AS Holland, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PG Isabel, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Stingray, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Spearfish, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Sculpin, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Seal, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Pope, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
SS Snapper, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
SS Skipjack, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
SS Porpoise, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
SS Seadragon, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Perch, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Sealion, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
SS Sturgeon, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Permit, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AK Paz, Bomb hits 1, on fire
PT PT-41, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Peary, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS S-41, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AV Langley, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Tarpon, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Sailfish, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
SS Searaven, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD John D. Ford, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS S-38, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
PG Tulsa, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AS Canopus, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
SS S-37, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Ethel Edwards, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Seawolf, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Pike, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Anakan, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Corregidor, Bomb hits 1, on fire
MSW Finch, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Bittern, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Bisayas, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Pickerel, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Princess of Negros, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Sargo, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AK Compagnia Filipinas, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-32, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Swordfish, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AO Pecos, Bomb hits 2, on fire
SS Salmon, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AK Palawan, Bomb hits 1, on fire
PT PT-35, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Pillsbury, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Tanager, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

(lol....i can sort of see now why some players choose to bomb Manilla instead of PH)

One other consideration though i admit i'm "reaching" a little here I consider an attack like this to be actually two attacks in one. Remember WitP's abstractions despite the illusion of specifics here. Six carriers of the KB were not capable of launching such a large mass attack at one time. In reality it would be two waves (as was the orig PH attack)

Under such an interpretation, thats about 13 planes lost or written off per attack against an alerted defense. Again, not bad given the level of damage caused.


House rule:

I'm not saying your 'house rule' isn't a viable solution but i still feel that such a rule is too restrictive because despite the impressive power of the heavy flak guns, there remain many situations (and bases) where low level bombing can be a profitable and valid tactic (one example would be the bombing of LCU's outside of a base) I also feel that players should be willing to make the choice to bomb at low altitude. Only difference is now they have to be willing to pay a heavy price in morale, damage and of course lost planes

The damages on the tacticals dont overly concern me because in general repair rates for aircraft in the game tend to be rapid....more so with the CV's. An oft voiced player complaint has been that CV's can ahistorically camp off a base and pound it for days. This was the main incentive for the aircraft ordinance point rule being added. In combination with a heavy degree of damage to repair (against a well defended base) this will be a less frequent occurance.

A better solution may be for me to partially disable some of Manilla's defenses to allow a suprise attack option on this city as well as Manila for those who prefer to bomb Manila instead of PH. (Personally i always start with the PH attack)



_____________________________


(in reply to Woos)
Post #: 28
RE: AA Gap and DBs - 10/22/2005 1:32:52 PM   
Woos

 

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

That makes 34 heavy AA guns

Yes, but that is the general situation in all places where significant CD guns exists, so some pre-invasion Air-bombardment would help to keep the Invasion-TF (and the bombardment-TF) alive.

Also the above numbers are for an optimal situation from the DBs point of view. Huge strike, Pilots 80-90 EXP, no/neglible fighter opposition, maybe a 7 december surprise bonus. Just reducing the strike size by half increases the loss ratio.
1/2 KB attacking Manila	(90Exp Pilots)	 Run 5 did not attack		
Run	1	2	3	4	6	Sum
Involved planes						
Val	59	59	59	59	59	295
Kate	71	71	71	71	71	355
Destroyed		 				
Val	13	8	4	5	8	38
Kate	6	6	1	0	0	13
Damaged						
Val	33	43	47	47	43	213
Kate	34	32	8	18	18	110
Val % 
lost	22,0%	13,6%	6,8%	8,5%	13,6%	12,9%
damaged	55,9%	72,9%	79,7%	79,7%	72,9%	72,2%
No AA coverage gap						
All fighters set to escort						
All planes set to 20000 feet						

Overall loss/damage of Vals (the only interesting number as one does not know how many Kates dive down to torpedo) from the full KB-20000feet strike two posts above were 8%/50%.

If furthermore experience is decreased to 70 (the replacement EXP for Navy in the mod), one gets
½ KB attacking Manila, 70 Exp Pilots						
Run	1	2	3	4	5	Sum
Involved planes						
Val	59	59	59	59	59	295
Kate	71	71	71	71	71	355
Destroyed						
Val	6	8	11	12	13	50
Kate	3	6	5	6	7	27
Damaged	 					
Val	47	43	37	35	33	195
Kate	36	33	24	39	29	161
Val % 
lost	10,2%	13,6%	18,6%	20,3%	22,0%	16,9%
damaged	79,7%	72,9%	62,7%	59,3%	55,9%	66,1%
No AA coverage gap						
All fighters set to escort						
All planes set to 20000 feet						

This is IMHO not a sustainable loss rate (especially since it is by flak alone!)

quote:

i can sort of see now why some players choose to bomb Manilla instead of PH

I don't deny that in this instance (with lots of ships in the habor and the ship hitting bonus of 7th december) it still makes sense to attack Manila with Full KB. But both circumstance will be gone on December 8th leaving CV fleets to bombard minor bases, do anti-ship operations or support China operations (where heavy AA is much less). Also splitting KB becomes less of an option.

quote:

without having to institute a house rule prohibiting bombing at low level

Admittedly I didn't test if restricting LB to fly either <=3000 feet or >=7000 feet will really help (so low level bombing would be still allowed but only near to the small caliber AA). And I'm a bit tired of reengineering the combat model of this game by running repeated test just because nobody understands the code anymore.
But I will just include the ceiling changes I wrote about above to your mod, reduce the sub durability by 2/1.5 (Japan/Allies), reduce some Japanese Naval factories to compensate for no longer needing to produce subs, start turn 1 again :-( and be happy :-)

[edit]
BTW, device 66 & 67 are ship AA weapons use by allied AK/AP, DD, AS and SS. If the AA gap is removed for them also (as you do in Nick Mod 4.2), Japanse DBs and TBs will get problems against ships, too.
(And device 68 looks as if it should have a ceiling higher than 25000 but also doesn't have in the original scenario. Do not wonder about unusal high loss rates among DBs and TBs when attacking some Dutch DDs and MLs ;-)

< Message edited by Woos -- 10/22/2005 8:03:25 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 29
RE: AA Gap and DBs - 10/22/2005 9:26:13 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


Yes, but that is the general situation in all places where significant CD guns exists, so some pre-invasion Air-bombardment would help to keep the Invasion-TF (and the bombardment-TF) alive.


Only if they are DP, and in the case of island coastal defenses, a bombardment, (naval) combined with air strikes will greatly reduce AA efficiency.

quote:


I don't deny that in this instance (with lots of ships in the habor and the ship hitting bonus of 7th december) it still makes sense to attack Manila with Full KB. But both circumstance will be gone on December 8th leaving CV fleets to bombard minor bases, do anti-ship operations or support China operations (where heavy AA is much less). Also splitting KB becomes less of an option.


This is true. There has been some argument that the ability of massed carriers to blast airbases into the dust is overstated in the game. In some ways a carrier force, particularily one with unarmored planes that needs to stand off attacking a heavily defended 'base' with large fighter and flak capabilities isn't all that ahistorical a situation. The Japanese were lulled by their early successes in China and later in the SRA into thinking that such attacks, more specifically the tactic of conducting straffing runs with their Zeros were profitible ventures anywhere but they were often facing virtually nil in terms of flak resistance. Against well protected US bases these tactics backfired.

I have played around with trying to make DB's more evasive of flak but they were unsuccessful. I dont think the game accurately depicts the greater difficulty of hitting a DB on it's run vs a lb.

quote:


Admittedly I didn't test if restricting LB to fly either <=3000 feet or >=7000 feet will really help (so low level bombing would be still allowed but only near to the small caliber AA). And I'm a bit tired of reengineering the combat model of this game by running repeated test just because nobody understands the code anymore.


your tired?! how 'bout me.

It would ultimately be better in the long run to adjust all guns so that the light/medium guns can do their share more accurately. I should note that my tinkering with the heavy AA guns and the removal of the all or nothing altitude restriction rule (vs. the more flexible one in BTR) are not simply some uber belief in the power of heavy AA. Some may be suprised to know that i was already aware of the attributes of heavy flak (minimum altitude/optimum altitude/max altitude) long before all the recent discussions erupted. Why did i do it anyway then?. For one, because sea based flak and land based flak are two seperate subjects and while sea based flak works well, land based doesn't. Secondly, for all these dry, paper discussions on how the guns should work, the way flak is resolved in the game itself seems to be getting discarded. Finally, across the board changes might balance land flak and totally futz up sea based flak. the heavy flak guns (mostly restricted to land bases) and being available in generally smaller numbers till late war make for a convenient means to address a specific segment and a long standing problem. Problem with the house rule is that while it will preserve the tacticals better, all the changes done are for nothing if players bomb below the 7-9k range. In making the change i based it in part on the realization that land base bombardment by carrier planes represents at least early war, a small aspect in the overall campaign, just as in real life. KB did make several major land based raids.......PH of course, (suprise attack), Darwin, Ceylon etc....but mostly KB and the US carriers stayed in the background and reserved their strength to fight each other or to blast naval ships. Land base suppression was left to the land based airforces in their bigger (and tougher) bombers. There remains a concern over late war USN carrier TF's and their ability to clean house at isolated bases. However as mentioned combined sea/air bombardments do greatly reduce the ability of flak


quote:


But I will just include the ceiling changes I wrote about above to your mod, reduce the sub durability by 2/1.5 (Japan/Allies), reduce some Japanese Naval factories to compensate for no longer needing to produce subs, start turn 1 again :-( and be happy :-)


Being happy is what counts. Players are of course free to customize my mod to their personal tastes. Thats what this game is all about. It remains my hope that the mod will increase everyone's enjoyment of the game and promote a sense of greater realism. On the sub changes, you dont need to bother. 4.5 of my mod removes for the time being the ASW changes given the upcoming patch.

quote:


BTW, device 66 & 67 are ship AA weapons use by allied AK/AP, DD, AS and SS. If the AA gap is removed for them also (as you do in Nick Mod 4.2), Japanse DBs and TBs will get problems against ships, too


Actually there is no altitude gap for heavy AA weapons that are on warships. Gary was smart about this and realized that ships at sea have a generally far greater abiltiy to fire latterally as well horizontally. having such a restrictive all or nothing altitude gap here would castrate TF's in their ability to defend. (particularily USN with it's heavy 5in AA weapons)

Again thx for the feedback. Will continue thinking, and tinkering.



< Message edited by Nikademus -- 10/23/2005 9:25:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Woos)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Nik Mod 4.0 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

0.177