Is those supposed to happen?

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?

Just about everyone here trying to assist has played multile games to late stage.

[hades1001]

Is that real?

For example, Bullwinkle58, has a AAR by then end of 42. Maybe he didn't post his 1945 AAR in the forum?

I'm not targeted anyone but it feels weird looking at someone talking about things they don't even know about.

Maybe I should just close the thread and end the turmoil.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: hades1001

You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?

Just about everyone here trying to assist has played multile games to late stage.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

[hades1001]

Thank you sir.

Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

Why would you be surprised? The point is that it is way outside of the design parameters, and this example has specifically been commented on to that effect by one developer, while in general such has been commented on to that effect by numerous developers in the past. They do not mean for the engine to support that many ships operating in one hex, and the first thing that breaks is the air model when that many carriers operate in one hex. They have said repeatedly "Don't do that!" and when someone does that, it hurts, and you are surprised that we point that out about the game? The game is not designed/coded to handle, and it doesn't handle it. They revealed that a long time ago and have repeated it a number of times.

If someone says "Hey developers, please change that." I would understand that whether I agreed with it or not. But when someone doggedly refuses to believe the developers' notice about it, I do not understand. The fact that the game handles many things that are beyond 'realistic' does not mean that it can handle everything that is beyond realistic. The fact that players do such things, even do them frequently, does not change that.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: castor troy

yeah, one hour pre warning time 2000 fighters on Cap and you think you would do different having them at different altitudes. Have fun failing, not much more I can say...

the op had his fighters at 20000ft, the strikes were at 10000ft. Just FINE! He didn't have them at 1000ft or 40000ft and even then, IF YOU WOULD HAVE EVER PUT SOME WORK INTO TESTING IT, you would find out that even
that wouldn't make any NOTABLE difference. OMG anybody of you experts realised the ridicoulosly high numbers involved? Your woodoo won't help here! There is just one thing that would make ANY difference, and that
is WEATHER! Make the strike attacking these ships in Thunderstorms instead of Light cloud or clear and you will see a DIFFERENCE. Your woodoo settings won't make any difference, the numbers are just too insane.

If you guys, after all these years, are not getting over the fact that the code just can't handle these absurd numbers, then I pity you all. And no, this is no critics on the code, this is critics to all those
that still don't get it. It's not some magic fantasy settings that you guys pull out of thin air it's just the code that is not supposed to handle 1 million of soldiers fighting each other on an atoll nor 5000
aircraft colliding in the air over the whole IJN/USN/RN stacked into one hex.

Can you please calm yourself, please! This is not personal. Don't' assume what I have or haven't done. YOUR ALL CAPS ARE RUDE!!! Pity? Really?
Your exuberance is leading you to exaggerate, just a bit. [:)]

In the OP the time to target is listed at 33 minutes, not an hour. 5k planes? Where?

Different CAP settings change results. It is possible. I have tested it, but not thoroughly enough to meet rigorous testing standards of 'experts' here (which I would never call myself, by the way). Look at my join date to the left. I'm not one of the 'guys' you're battling against. I'm just trying to learn more, not win an argument.

If CAP settings don't matter, why not fly them all at 6k, or at 30k? [:D]

I've been playing in the late game with big numbers, and actually in the beta it's not nearly as bad as it was pre-beta. Some strikes get through, but a whole lot do not, and LBA can't do squat no matter the numbers, so the code is actually handling some of these things better than you think. That is a testament to the designers and michaelm consistently giving it tweaks to make it better.

If all of us just did a few tests and decided changing settings, trying out new ideas, experimenting, simply wasn't important, then I'm sure there would be a lot of boring, low quality games played.[;)]

You could have all at 6k or 30k. Or like I have posted, all at 40k which would be beyond the fighters ceiling. And again, it would not have changed the outcome of this battle. The altitude he had his fighters
was just fine and it was not the reason for the outcome. There is only one reason and I got no idea how many times I have to repeat myself, the code just can't handle these numbers. Why is this so hard to
understand? Why is there this party on the forum trying to explain absurd outcomes of absurd battles due to absurd numbers involved? There is and always was only one reason, NUMBERS. Not altitude, not TF composition
not woodoo, like some ppl here seem to repeatadly try to bring up in a religious way.

I am not talking about playing around in a PBEM late war, I am saying testing. Testing means taking the time to set up a scenario, then put a shitload of ships into it and air units both onto land bases and ships
and then try to prove the woodoo that some people try to get out of the game that isn't in there. In the end you will find out, heck, I have tried it 50 times now and it didn't help. Could it be that most of what
I was told is nothing but BS (sorry to say it this way). First I have been playing thousands of hours, I have tried things to do that just didn't work and for me they weren't supposed to work. I fought battles on
the forum for years about these things. Then, instead of wasting my time writing stuff on the forum, getting an answer that blew the brain out of my head, repeating and wasting more time, I just started to setup
a test scenario and spent endless time just sitting there watching huge air battles on and on. Rinse, repeat. Hours and hours in between waiting for PBEM turns.

And then I came to above's conclusion. Believe it or don't. Those that are on the other side of mine, I'd say "I call and want to see what you've got". I have seen endless numbers of combat reports supporting my
side, no AAR seen yet what my opposition claims. None, never. And still it might work one out of x times, but not because of woodoo settings, just because of some die roll that went in your favour. But in the majority
of times, it won't. Why? Because what works ok with a hundred involved aircraft totally fails when there are 4000+ involved. Surprised?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
The fact that the game handles many things that are beyond 'realistic' does not mean that it can handle everything that is beyond realistic. The fact that players do such things, even do them frequently, does not change that.

Thats probably the central point here.

And no, obvert, I don´t think that a single experienced player here would amass "95% of the USN in a single hex" in a potential combat environment, at least not without being absolutely aware of the consequences.

PS: Just a hint: arguing with CT when he gets all emotional isn´t worth it. He will only read 50% of your posts content, decide which part of the remaining 50% is the more irritating to him, and then get even more emotional on those 25% while completely missing the target (or failing to understand that what he gets emotional about has been already discussed ages ago). [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time.

This gave me a visual of synchronized flight ops with 2 dozen carriers, sorta like movies in the 50’s. “Now we see all these carrier pivot cleanly on their sterns to course 170 true…of wait, the Franklin seems to have stumbled a bit. Oh that IS bad luck, I hope the Nassau can get out of the way in time! Oh, bad show, the Franklin seems to be back on course, but the Nassau seems to have vanished” [:D][:D][:D]

Ask the USS Evans.

Two-dozen would be generous for the moves this guy tried. 95% of the entire USN in 40-miles. Picture that famous photo of Ulithi Atoll fleet anchorage in the late war. Now add hundreds more ships. Now make them all move at once.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Is that real?

For example, Bullwinkle58, has a AAR by then end of 42. Maybe he didn't post his 1945 AAR in the forum?

I'm not targeted anyone but it feels weird looking at someone talking about things they don't even know about.

Maybe I should just close the thread and end the turmoil.

Ya think?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

I don't recall what the dispossition of your opponent's carriers was. Him losing 20-ish CVEs was pretty spectacular, yeah. ]

But he didn't put 95% of the ENTIRE USN in one hex. See the diff?

[hades1001]

I do it not because I like it or I think it's realistic,

I do it because I have to, otherwise I don't an option to protect my fleet.

As you can see even 2500 cap won't provide full protection.

What are you going to do then? Spread the fleet in a few hexes (more realistic) and let them get slaughtered by the Japanese?

I don't think so.

So, for you sir, you are apparently lack of 1945 game experience and have no idea what a hell Allies may face in the game.

You can play realistic and be my guest, you won't last long in the game anyway.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time.

This gave me a visual of synchronized flight ops with 2 dozen carriers, sorta like movies in the 50’s. “Now we see all these carrier pivot cleanly on their sterns to course 170 true…of wait, the Franklin seems to have stumbled a bit. Oh that IS bad luck, I hope the Nassau can get out of the way in time! Oh, bad show, the Franklin seems to be back on course, but the Nassau seems to have vanished” [:D][:D][:D]

Ask the USS Evans.

Two-dozen would be generous for the moves this guy tried. 95% of the entire USN in 40-miles. Picture that famous photo of Ulithi Atoll fleet anchorage in the late war. Now add hundreds more ships. Now make them all move at once.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

I do it not because I like it or I think it's realistic,

I do it because I have to, otherwise I don't an option to protect my fleet.

As you can see even 2500 cap won't provide full protection.

What are you going to do then? Spread the fleet in a few hexes (more realistic) and let them get slaughtered by the Japanese?

I don't think so.

So, for you sir, you are apparently lack of 1945 game experience and have no idea what a hell Allies may face in the game.

You can play realistic and be my guest, you won't last long in the game anyway.

I've played three full GCs as Allies against the AI, one to the spring of 1946. I'm in two PBEM games; only one is AARed. I started playing WITP in 2005.

If you believe this was your ONLY option, as you've said multiple times, you don't have nearly enough experience with the game to have an opinion on my skill set. You've been told by many people with even more experience than me that you're wrong. Most importantly, you've been told by a developer who is still in active support of the game that what you did will break the engine, won't produce the results you believe you're entitled to. Won't. Do. It.

Keep flogging the dolphin here if you like, but you screwed up. Learn and move on.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

So you will spread your fleet in several hex when knowing there is a 1300AC KB coming?

Very wise.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: hades1001

95% of Allies CV/CVL/CVL/BB/CA and DDs are in this hex [...] together with a couple hundred of transports.

This is not a abuse of engine but a must move in the game.

95% of Allied combat ships in the same hex is no abuse of engine?

Well, with so many ships in one hex there is probably no sea room left for evasive maneuvers to avoid incoming torps. The Japanese can just drop them without aiming - they will surely hit something in the wall of ships in front of them...

If I know that late in the game there still is a Mega-KB with teeth out there, I would a) consider the possibility that I may have done something wrong since 1943, b) go KB-hunting before sending transports in harm's way, c) not bring any Combustible-Vulnerable-Expendable types along until the fleet-type CVs have pulled KBs' teeth, and d) maybe decide to play it save, change strategy and advance under cover of LBA

[hades1001]

LOL play against AI till spring 46...

I'll just shut up, no point arguing with you.

BTW would you mind point out who's the active developer that point out what I do break the engine? I may missed that thread and want to read his comments again. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: hades1001

I do it not because I like it or I think it's realistic,

I do it because I have to, otherwise I don't an option to protect my fleet.

As you can see even 2500 cap won't provide full protection.

What are you going to do then? Spread the fleet in a few hexes (more realistic) and let them get slaughtered by the Japanese?

I don't think so.

So, for you sir, you are apparently lack of 1945 game experience and have no idea what a hell Allies may face in the game.

You can play realistic and be my guest, you won't last long in the game anyway.

I've played three full GCs as Allies against the AI, one to the spring of 1946. I'm in two PBEM games; only one is AARed. I started playing WITP in 2005.

If you believe this was your ONLY option, as you've said multiple times, you don't have nearly enough experience with the game to have an opinion on my skill set. You've been told by many people with even more experience than me that you're wrong. Most importantly, you've been told by a developer who is still in active support of the game, that what you did will break the engine, won't produce the results you believe you're entitled to. Won't. Do. It.

Keep flogging the dolphin here if you like, but you screwed up. Learn and move on.

[LoBaron]

Bullwinkle, Alfred, witpqs, John, and alot of other players who had posted in this thread each forgot a lot more on this game than you will ever learn.

And I do not even need to exaggerate. [:D]

I am done with this stubborn display of incompetence...bye.

[hades1001]

Considering what you have done wrong in 43 won't help the game in 45.

But other suggestions are quite practical. Allies can advance with support of LBA, I have followed the idea for years. But do you realize that at a certain point of time, Allies have to take risk and push forward with limited LBA support?

At least that's the situation I'm facing.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: hades1001

So you will spread your fleet in several hex when knowing there is a 1300AC KB coming?

Very wise.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget




95% of Allied combat ships in the same hex is no abuse of engine?

Well, with so many ships in one hex there is probably no sea room left for evasive maneuvers to avoid incoming torps. The Japanese can just drop them without aiming - they will surely hit something in the wall of ships in front of them...

If I know that late in the game there still is a Mega-KB with teeth out there, I would a) consider the possibility that I may have done something wrong since 1943, b) go KB-hunting before sending transports in harm's way, c) not bring any Combustible-Vulnerable-Expendable types along until the fleet-type CVs have pulled KBs' teeth, and d) maybe decide to play it save, change strategy and advance under cover of LBA

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

LOL play against AI till spring 46...

I'll just shut up, no point arguing with you.

BTW would you mind point out who's the active developer that point out what I do break the engine? I may missed that thread and want to read his comments again. Thanks.

This thread. Post #36. No longer an "active developer", as there are no longer any true "active developers", but one of the lead developers for AE. You're welcome. [:)]

[hades1001]

edited

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

BTW would you mind point out who's the active developer that point out what I do break the engine? I may missed that thread and want to read his comments again. Thanks.

Symon is JWE. Look him up in the game credits.

Or look here:

tm.asp?m=2173764&mpage=1&key=Team

"JWE

John was in the US Army Artillery overlapping with the years I was in this branch. John then moved on the NSA and currently he is a patent attorney in So Cal.

John has had so many jobs on the team, that I doubt I can remember them all. I think he was originally brought in to be our Amphibous Warfare guy. His work with the Marines has led to development of a comprehensive and consistent rework of the land devices - so many if not all of the AE land devices are derivations of John's work.

John also brought us our "ship art team" consisting of Brian (BigB), Kelley (TomLabel) and himself. These guys have churned out hundreds of new ships for AE.

And then John took over the Naval Team Lead job for about the last year of the project. In this role he worked with Don to define and refine the specs for loading, unload, rearming, damage and repair. In his "spare time" he also single handedly did the full OOB for auxiliaries and merchant ships for all the nations. Those of us who did the combat ships think we did a lot of work - we can hardly imagine the effort John took to do all the merchant ships - and they are not "generics" like in stock - they are individualized - whew!

John is also an excellent tester. When we start seeing some odd results in some of the combat routines, John set up a very organized and methodical testing process to compare stock, to AE, before and after iterative changes were made. This process enabled us to correct and stablize some very tricky code, quickly.

There is simply no way we could have built AE as well as we did without all these various contributions from John - I know the rest of the team joins me in thanking John for the professionalism of his efforts."
----------------------------------------------------------------


You're welcome.

[hades1001]

Thank you sir, let me take a look.

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: hades1001

LOL play against AI till spring 46...

I'll just shut up, no point arguing with you.

BTW would you mind point out who's the active developer that point out what I do break the engine? I may missed that thread and want to read his comments again. Thanks.

This thread. Post #36. No longer an "active developer", as there are no longer any true "active developers", but one of the lead developers for AE. You're welcome. [:)]