Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 11:26:48 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...


Ahh, bummer.


_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 181
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 12:18:34 PM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.


You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.


No no... All those strikes I quoted are Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133.
As you see, A6M2-N Rufe x 4 appears 6 times.
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31 appears 3 times, and Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10 appears 2 times. Some of those other Tojo groups might partly be "ghost" planes too. Like I said, it's a minor bug, a known display glitch. They are escorting only once, but they appear several times.

Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...


If you set one squadron to LRCAP some hex, and then rest of the squadrons fly in the same hex to do their other missions you get results like that - the squadron set to LRCAP shows all the time, even though it is usually not participating in the battle at all.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 182
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 12:51:04 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1736
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.


You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.


No no... All those strikes I quoted are Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133.
As you see, A6M2-N Rufe x 4 appears 6 times.
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31 appears 3 times, and Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10 appears 2 times. Some of those other Tojo groups might partly be "ghost" planes too. Like I said, it's a minor bug, a known display glitch. They are escorting only once, but they appear several times.

Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...


If you set one squadron to LRCAP some hex, and then rest of the squadrons fly in the same hex to do their other missions you get results like that - the squadron set to LRCAP shows all the time, even though it is usually not participating in the battle at all.


Yeah, LRPAC shows all the time. But that's not the case in EUBanana's example. If you look at that Vella Lavella AM strikes, you noticed that none of those planes appear every time. Rufe x 4 is missing at least twice, Tojo x 31 appears now and then, one strike of 2 Judys don't have fighter escorts at all etc. Plane numbers just don't match. So I think there was a display bug.

Of course it's possible that I'm wrong and there was about 180 Tojos (at least 5 Sentais) escorting AM stikes, but I seriously doubt it.

(in reply to Djordje)
Post #: 183
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 1:27:51 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18475
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...


Ahh, bummer.



Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 184
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 1:28:03 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Of course it's possible that I'm wrong and there was about 180 Tojos (at least 5 Sentais) escorting AM stikes, but I seriously doubt it.


Well, one thing is an undoubted fact - on that day ~60 Japanese aircraft were shot down or toasted on runways, and 24 of them were Tojos. A very high percentage of Tojos in that mix of assets, especially when you consider that was during a day that flying zippos were being used.

Maybe not 180 Tojos - but one way or another, the Tojo is right now the main component of the Japanese air force!

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 1/6/2011 1:29:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 185
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 2:31:33 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1736
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...


Ahh, bummer.



Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.


Well, when I noticed it first time, my opponent told me it's known display glitch...

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 186
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 3:25:57 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
Vella Lavella is right next to Jap held Choiseul Bay, so those Rufes/Tojos may well be Choiseul Bay CAP bleeding over to the Vella Lavella hex.

_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 187
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 6:37:34 PM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline
The Tojo is the main component of the IJA airforce because its the best most versatile fighter. Other models are available and have their uses :)

Anyway what is good about discussion, is that perspective on events vary due to fow, incomplete information and observer bias. Discussion should illuminate what is percieved against what actually happened. The estimate on Tojo's in the air in the above example is grossly out, perhaps as much as x4 although i hate to disabuse my honoured opponent of the strength of the Japanese Airforce. Likewise i see hordes of 4e bombers apparently flying with impunity thorugh whatever i throw at them.

I also think there is a difference, maybe hard to draw at times, between force utilisation and combat modelling. Two examples of this would be with 4E bombers, concentrating all your bombers for large (ahistoric) raids is simply force utilisation, versus overly effective turrets (combat model innacuracy). Another example may be Japanese ASW. Utilising more assets as ASW than historical is force utilisation, if the ASW damage model is over effective then thats a combat model problem. The difficulty is partially in working out is high effectiveness due to force utilisation and other player tactics or becuase theres an issue with the combat modelling.

Yet another consideration is game balance whereby innacuracies are allowed because they balance the game. I don't know if this is a consideration in the game design but it clearly concerns players that if an aspect of the combat model is made more accurate then it will throw game balance out of kilter. As this is a game then its a legitimate concern.

To be clear my personal view is that allied 4e bombers need a very slight tweak. Nemo's suggestion to me seems of great merit. Other views may vary and thats great because i like a good discussion and i may just be plain wrong. Whatever, i can't say enough what a great game this is with great support and great community. Even my opponents are great

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 188
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 6:58:10 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
I did a lot of testing with regard to Large US bombers some time ago, and the only variable that I am aware of that will have a readly apricable efect on them with regard to fighters is their durabality rating.

B-17s were/are rated as bing apricably more durable than a B-24 in game adjusting the B-17's durabality down resulted in what I felt was much more realistic end efect, unfortunatly those tests are lost to time, they went with the purge of data on the development forum.



_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 189
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 7:32:03 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13814
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying...


Ahh, bummer.



Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.


Well, when I noticed it first time, my opponent told me it's known display glitch...



it´s not a display glitch, it´s a damn bug... here´s another example of my PBEM, look at the Lightnings... these are always the same squadrons, three of them being set to ESCORT "Cagayan"... and everytime they were not only showing up in the display, but were actually shooting down enemy aircraft (when there were some to shoot down) and were shot at...


Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 27,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 4
N1K1-J George x 7
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 25
Ki-84a Frank x 1



Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 49
F4U-1A Corsair x 54


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 5 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 1 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
18 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet
16 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet
16 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet

CAP engaged:
254 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
341 Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(7 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 41010
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
73rd Sentai with Ki-84a Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 19 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 23000 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 28,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 1
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 6



Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 45
F4U-1A Corsair x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 1 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
18 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet
10 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
11 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
12 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
341 Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 41010 , scrambling fighters to 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 4



Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 86
P-38J Lightning x 44


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 4 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed on ground
H6K5 Mavis: 4 destroyed on ground


Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled



Airbase hits 22
Airbase supply hits 21
Runway hits 172

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
11 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 2



Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 41
P-38J Lightning x 43


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed on ground
H6K5 Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 81

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
16 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
14 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 43


Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
LB-206, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5003, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ACM Kaisho Maru, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
LB-5009, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-203, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-201, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5005, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-208, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5015, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5002, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5014, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-1035, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5007, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-207, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5006, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-204, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5012, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5011, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5008, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-202, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5001, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5013, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-205, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5010, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5004, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk



Port hits 4
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 28


Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
ACM Kaisho Maru, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk



Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Tarakan , at 67,91

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 46
P-38J Lightning x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-III Dinah: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged



Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 44

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Tarakan , at 67,91

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 16


No Allied losses



Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 13

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 22
P-38J Lightning x 43


Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 26

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 14
P-38J Lightning x 43


Japanese aircraft losses
H6K5 Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 30

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 11
P-38J Lightning x 43


No Allied losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 34

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 7


No Allied losses



Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 43
PB4Y-1P Liberator x 1


No Allied losses



Aircraft Attacking:
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet




all this coordination and strike thingy is flawed, nothing but flawed.


_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 190
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/6/2011 9:46:46 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline



quote:


So, my solution would be to combine the service rating with durability. This would allow you to model low durability planes with high service ratings as having extreme operational losses whilst also allowing you to show clear differences between high durability 4-engined bombers which had high reliability ( Lancasters, later models of the B29 ) and high durability 4-engine bombers with poor reliability ( early models of the B29 where engines often spontaneously caught fire mid-flight ). By decoupling ops losses from strictly correlating just to durability you'd improve the model. The best, simple, quickest to implement method for doing this would be to link ops losses to durability combined with service rating.

It is simple, gives face validity, can be easily explained and justified to the community ( important because of the Castor Troys out there who will claim anything they do is broken in some way ( albeit only in his copy of the game ) ), is reliable and allows a deeper level of modelling which allows a greater ( and more realistic ) differentiation between different plane types ( e.g. early model B29s which were much more likely to become ops losses than late-model B29s ).

It would require a code change but since the values are already calculated for service ratings it would be quicker to implement than having to calculate and represent new "temperamentability" ratings for all the various planes and then having to implement that. That could be a goal for AE 2.



quote:

Well, I'm removing myself from the discussion. It has become useless because people couldn't maintain focus and, instead of starting their own threads to discuss how aviation support etc played into the grand strategic game decided to polute the thread.

I'm not posting this to be pissy but just to make people think about this and ask themselves what was so difficult about respecting the intention of the thread and just starting a 2nd parallel discussion about aviation support etc etc. The NEW THREAD button is there for a reason guys.

This sort of discussion creep renders focused discussion impossible and is one reason a lot of high calibre people will no longer discuss issues in the War Room and elsewhere.



I've seen JFBs lobby for all sorts of changes to weaken the Allies, frequently successfully, but this is the first time I've seen it attempted while simultaneously trying to dictate the terms of debate.

If you were making a mod, then you'd have the right to dictate terms, but you called for a change in the code. At that point concern for what effect that single change might have in other areas is completely valid.

Good luck with the mod. Hopefully you can achieve your desired effect without changing things for the rest of us.




_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 191
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/7/2011 2:26:49 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Anyway what is good about discussion, is that perspective on events vary due to fow, incomplete information and observer bias. Discussion should illuminate what is percieved against what actually happened. The estimate on Tojo's in the air in the above example is grossly out, perhaps as much as x4 although i hate to disabuse my honoured opponent of the strength of the Japanese Airforce. Likewise i see hordes of 4e bombers apparently flying with impunity thorugh whatever i throw at them.


This is all very true, and really is the root of why I chimed in.

Heavy bombers get shot down a lot when considered relative to their replacement rate, and if you've actually played with them as Allies and seen the uptime of them, and how long it takes to fix a damaged one, and so on, you will get a rather different picture of how invincible they are. Certainly in 1942 the Allied heavy bomber force was tending to shrink over time in our game, not get bigger. That tells me that heavy bombers in fact were being fended off all along, from an attritional standpoint. And these raids people like Puhis are on about I find very hard to believe could be sustained given the uptime of heavy bombers, when facing opposition, is probably about 50%.

Maybe if the Japs dont put up a fight, thus not attritioning them and keeping them on the runway being fixed, you could see these numbers.

There is a very strong tendency to always focus on what is being done to your own beloved pixeltruppen while not focusing enough on what you've done to your opponent. What you have done to your opponent is shrouded in the murk of the fog of war, while what is being done to you is painfully (literally) obvious.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 1/7/2011 2:32:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 192
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/8/2011 2:34:30 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
quote:



There is a very strong tendency to always focus on what is being done to your own beloved pixeltruppen while not focusing enough on what you've done to your opponent. What you have done to your opponent is shrouded in the murk of the fog of war, while what is being done to you is painfully (literally) obvious.



Wise words indeed :-)

P.S. "beloved pixeltruppen" - love it!

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 193
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/8/2011 4:41:14 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
mjk428,

Sadly your post is crippled by the fact that the facts you state are pretty much all wrong or misrepresented:

1. JFB: No, I alternate as Allies or Japanese. I'm a fan boy for skillful strategic play and mindgames, not for either side. I DO like technical characteristics to be modelled accurately but then am happy to use them in a "what if" sort of way. Dealing with the bomber defensive armament is simply an extension of that.

2. As to your first quote.... I was asked how I would improve the current operational loss model which causes excessive operational losses to transport planes and patrol planes which have low durability and engage in many, long flights relative to other planes. That combination of factors resulting in massive ops losses as the ops model looks at durability, flight range and frequency ( as well as a few other things ) to determine ops losses. Stating that the model I outlined would require a code change is a simple statement of fact. It wasn't lobbying for a code change. If you asked me how it might be possible to better model something and I answered you it wouldn't be analogous to lobbying for the change. I trust that the very basic difference between lobbying and answering a question is now apparent to you.

3. That quote was NOT, at all, related to the other quote you've taken out of context. I absented myself from the discussion because the failure of people to observe basic courtesy and start new threads to discuss side-issues meant that this thread lost focus on the original issue - improving the interaction between bombers ( of both sides ) and fighters ( of both sides ). It had nothing to do with the quote you have above which was my response to a direct question.


So, I don't know whether you merely misread things or whether you were being maliciously disingenuous but I trust this clarifies it. Sorry if the tone is a bit harsh but I HATE when people who misquote others and make it seem they're saying things they aren't.



EUBanana,
Discussing the rate at which bombers get shot down and the rate at which they get replaced is valid in a discussion of game balance. However, if you are focussing on getting the technical model right then that isn't an issue. If you got 1 a month or 100 a day shouldn't impact on the model if you are going for accurate combat modelling.

I know game design often features compromises between playability and accuracy but the initial ( long, long-lost ) goal of this thread was to improve the accuracy of the model. Once the model was accurate other means could be found to introduce the necessary game balance. I amn't someone who agrees that intentionally introducing errors in modelling into the combat model is a good idea. I prefer to get the combat model right and then introduce whatever balance is necessary through VPs or whatever. You are of course free to differ but I do think that you should, at least, admit that talking about changing or not fixing the combat model is a play balance issue and not an issue to do with saying the current in-game combat model is accurate.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/8/2011 4:44:46 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 194
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/8/2011 6:07:59 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

mjk428,

Sadly your post is crippled by the fact that the facts you state are pretty much all wrong or misrepresented:

1. JFB: No, I alternate as Allies or Japanese. I'm a fan boy for skillful strategic play and mindgames, not for either side. I DO like technical characteristics to be modelled accurately but then am happy to use them in a "what if" sort of way. Dealing with the bomber defensive armament is simply an extension of that.

2. As to your first quote.... I was asked how I would improve the current operational loss model which causes excessive operational losses to transport planes and patrol planes which have low durability and engage in many, long flights relative to other planes. That combination of factors resulting in massive ops losses as the ops model looks at durability, flight range and frequency ( as well as a few other things ) to determine ops losses. Stating that the model I outlined would require a code change is a simple statement of fact. It wasn't lobbying for a code change. If you asked me how it might be possible to better model something and I answered you it wouldn't be analogous to lobbying for the change. I trust that the very basic difference between lobbying and answering a question is now apparent to you.

3. That quote was NOT, at all, related to the other quote you've taken out of context. I absented myself from the discussion because the failure of people to observe basic courtesy and start new threads to discuss side-issues meant that this thread lost focus on the original issue - improving the interaction between bombers ( of both sides ) and fighters ( of both sides ). It had nothing to do with the quote you have above which was my response to a direct question.


So, I don't know whether you merely misread things or whether you were being maliciously disingenuous but I trust this clarifies it. Sorry if the tone is a bit harsh but I HATE when people who misquote others and make it seem they're saying things they aren't.



You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".


< Message edited by mjk428 -- 1/8/2011 6:09:14 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 195
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/8/2011 8:00:51 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".




nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum.




< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/8/2011 8:01:04 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 196
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/8/2011 8:24:56 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".




1) nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

2) It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

3) So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

4) And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum.



1) OK. Cool.

2) Nemo threw a fit and (supposedly) left the thread because he was unable to satisfactorily dictate the terms of discussion.

3) No the wrong designation was not why I posted. Although it was the reason I initially clicked on the thread. I was curious to see how B-52s figured into the game.

4) I agree with you. It was Nemo that was being anal about sticking to the topic to the point that further discussion became unbearable for him.



< Message edited by mjk428 -- 1/8/2011 8:26:14 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 197
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/8/2011 8:38:54 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.


BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".




1) nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

2) It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

3) So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

4) And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum.



1) OK. Cool.

2) Nemo threw a fit and (supposedly) left the thread because he was unable to satisfactorily dictate the terms of discussion.

3) No the wrong designation was not why I posted. Although it was the reason I initially clicked on the thread. I was curious to see how B-52s figured into the game.

4) I agree with you. It was Nemo that was being anal about sticking to the topic to the point that further discussion became unbearable for him.





And I agree with you that people tend to remain stuck with their opinion for too long because they measure the weight of different arguments on a subjective basis.
But I guess that applies to the majority, including myself - as seldom as possible hopefully.

No offense, and I can confirm that I havent seen any buffs in-game lately.

_____________________________


(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 198
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 12:07:08 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
B-17 was used as an example because it was an effective example of the changes spanning the period when Japanese fighter armament changed dramatically.

The same changes apply to Bettys, B-29s, Helens, Ki-264 variants etc. Simply because the the best in-game example of application of the changes was Allied It is JFBism?

How irrational. Anyways, it is clear that facts aren't going to have an impact here. cya

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 199
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 2:21:50 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Geez...what's with the personal attacks?

Nemo, you may have left, but I doubt it, and if you read this, I'd like to point out what you originally posted...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'd like to start this thread to continue a discussion 1EyedJacks and I have been having about B-17s in the early war, particularly as I'm seeing a different side of the same stick in my 1945 game. I'd like to invite anyone to contribute as 1EyedJacks in particular wants to build up a picture of others' experience with 4-engined bombers both commanding and opposing them.


So far, that what I believe most, if not everyone has done. Sure it's varied off point to this "glitch", but for the most part, it's stayed on exactly what you asked for. So, if you wanted a more focused discussion, such as "accuracy of the model", you should have made that clearer up front.

People are sharing their experiences.



< Message edited by vicberg -- 1/9/2011 2:23:13 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 200
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 5:13:43 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

This is an example of what frustrates me with the 4E bombers...
------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is bogus. During the run those bombers are flying in formation @ a level altitude and they are not "jinking" or manuevering or trying to give their gunners better targets. The navigator is in control during the bombing run...



Does the part I bolded matter?


in a word....yes.


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 201
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 5:34:27 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2327
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Nope, leave the forts alone unless there is a willingness to address other issues in the game. Yes, I agree that my heavy bombers are a bit stronger and have more influence than they should in AE. However, as the Allied player I am dealing with-in no particular order:


The Japanese ability to train up great pilots in endless numbers.



This to me is why any deviation from the B-17 modelling however small is meaningless.

_____________________________

There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 202
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 5:51:33 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, as I see it the model could be improved upon.

If I were asked to come up with an improvement to the ops loss model ( which I haven't been and never will be. Not too popular with many of the developers ) there would be two options:


Don't sell yourself short. You are one of the most intelligent, fair, and thoughtful members of this forum.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 203
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 5:54:37 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
I recommend a Service rating of 5 for B-17C/D/E. I am on the fence about the F. The B-24 and B-29 are about right. Superfort is already at 5. This would go a long way towards reflecting the challenges that bomber units faced early in the war, and better represent the low op tempo of the Fortress.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 204
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 5:58:39 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html

Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this.



Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game...

The problem with these reports are they from the pilots involved... for instance, there was a report (which is still in circulation) where an SBD pilot shot down something like 5 attacking IJN planes (Vals, Kates, etc.) The pilot got a medal and promoted to fighters.

Problem is, after the war, it was shown none of this happened. Stuff like this happened over and over again with pilots reporting multiple kills, and yet none them verified when enemy records were examined.

Sakai's book, while interesting, suffered from not having verification on a number of the incidents he claimed.

very true...reports like this when not run to ground by our esteemed players imbue them with a false sense of reality... one of the major challenges of being a dev on this forum.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 205
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 6:01:02 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The issue with this aspect is, as always, the far reaching consequeces of even a minor change. Makes WitPAE one real ba***** to tweak.

I think SuluSea is spot on when he introduces a further aspect: op losses are not always, but sometimes, related to A2A, so its very difficult to get a clear picture
of the interactions. You simply cannot assume to what an op loss is originally related to (e.g. AC previeousely damaged in an engagement crashing on landing because of the damage).

I still would opt for the gun accuracy option to test.


While I agree, Ideally there would be a formation cohesion test that affects the accuracy of bomber defensive armaments; for all I know of the code, there already is. This should apply to all bomber formations, not just HBs. The example of what happened to Sakai when he "pounced" on a formation of TBFs comes to mind.

bomber defense is a collective measure that factors several things into opposing attacking fighter rolls. Obviously the more bombers you have the higher that collective measure. However we did put a cap in place to represent that not ALL bombers of a 100 plane formation fx would be firing at the same fighter.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 206
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 6:05:20 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

These are the two day-raids for 5.22.42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 33
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 18
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 10
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11 Roughly 70/30 Fighter/Bomber with a little over 40 of those fighters armed with a 20mm gun.



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 29


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 10 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed on ground
G3M2 Nell: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 25 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 35

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (33 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
33 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (6 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 9
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 4
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 8



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 4 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged



Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
20 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 250 minutes
77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes
264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 61 minutes

Notes:
@ Singapore: Serviceable/Maint/Damage/Reserve - these are the fighter units assigned Day Ops. I'm unsure if any fighter groups assigned Night Ops missions would have scrambled but some aircarft from those units could be in the ground losses...
12 Oscar-Ic now 6/0/2/0
10 Oscar-Ic now 3/0/5/0
12 Oscar-Ic now 6/0/4/0
27 Oscar-Ib now 14/0/8/0
31 NickKAIa now 14/0/12/0
45 A6M2 Zero now 28/0/3/1

Just as an FYI some of these units had aircraft in the shop from the day B4. Also airfield was pummeled. All fighters set @ 80/20 CAP/Rest. Moral is taking a beating on a few of my air groups - more then usual - probably due to the pummeling of the base by the 4E bombers?

There was some AAA activity but I didn't see any 4E go down. I think Flak damage message came up 5 times during the 1st attack.







not for nuthin, but this raid resulted in 7% losses. I count this as one uncoordinated raid. I am also of course assuming this was the only B-17 activity...

< Message edited by TheElf -- 1/9/2011 6:06:59 PM >


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 207
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 6:19:31 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2327
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
I always enjoy reading your posts Elf and appreciate your contributions to this game.

Just wondering about some of the shot down fighters people see and how the aggressiveness of the leader of the fighter unit and how that plays into pressing home the attack in the face of heavy defense by the HBs. Am I off base in thinking this?

Thanks!

_____________________________

There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 208
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. - 1/9/2011 6:21:45 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

In all the games that I have played I have never seen that many fighters shot down by 4E bombers. I have had my bombers damaged and spending a lot of time being repaired, which is what I expect.

Part of the problem with PBEM is players will launch huge raids which seldom happened especially early in the war. That throws off the combat tables. The 20mm's on the Zero's are not that effective. It was proven in Europe that the slow firing 20mm did not work well in air-air combat. The changes you are talking about will change how the engine handles air combat and more 4E will be lost than should be. Find a good used bookstore and see if you can locate the Army Airforces in WWII. Its a multi-volumn set but it has after action reports and I found it to be rather informative. Pretty dry reading but you will see that the heavy bombers had very high survivablity against the Oscars and Zero's.



There are a couple of other things that tend to occur. I have said this before, though I'd be hard pressed to find the post (it may actually be on the ole WitP Forum). Optempo is a huge factor. Players tend to think they should be able to mount daily raids with their 4E, and they often try to. This is an inaccurate use of 4E. In reality it took a lot of time to get the paucity of 4E aircraft early in the war, particularly the B-17s into the air. And when they did it was frequently several days if not a week between raids. They just didn't have the maintenance available. This and the utter lack of proper maritime patrol assets meant that even when they had aircraft their duties were not limited to the closure of IJ AFs.

Most players do not play this game with any real sense of the Air War. Most are still learning as they play. Castor Troy is a perfect example of this.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 1/9/2011 6:30:47 PM >


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 209
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.373