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: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) Page: <<   < prev  129 130 [131] 132 133   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 3:54:20 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

  • pilot quality
  • airspeed
  • manoeuvrability
  • durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3901
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 3:59:23 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3390
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

For a problem in the database in my current PBEM (scen1), Tojo mounts Ha-35 instead of Ha-34 and that's a big deal since I will have to switch Tojo factories only, not caring much on Ha-34.

If I had to make a choice between spending hundreds of thousands of supplies on Tojo switch and trying to find an use for it, I would definitely go for the latter.

Broadly speaking, I would begin to increase other factories' production instead of switching. In the worst case scenario I would end up with a lot of unused production capacity with Ha-34 shut off for months. In the best case scenario, I have the possibility to use those stuff somehow even as a temporary/emergency solution.

Regarding Tojo kami: I still have to grasp the actual damage inflicted by the plane itself.

But, again, I am probably in a different industrial situation since I hold India, I have strongly expanded HIs in the DEI and MSY prod is shut off. I feel that this situation allows me to much more freedom in terms of industrial choices (f.ex. using also 2Es as kami)


Yep, in Scenario 1 (which I'm playing), the Tojo mounts the Ha-34, so it is what it is.

So far, I've averaged a gain of 50k supply a month. I've been gaining more than 100k a month this year, but it's about to drop with the engine and airframe changes coming. I trust Pax's supply goals for end game. He's played a lot more of that time frame than me (this is the farthest I've ever played). I need 6 million supply in about a year. I have 4.3 million right now. At 100k per month, I'll have 5.7 million saved. Close enough. But, I have a lot of engine & airframe expansion to do. I'm trying to come up with an supply cost estimate now. The HI should be fine, but the supply will be a concern.


Don't forget to factor fort/airbase expansion into the equation. That fairly eats up the supplies.

In no particular order, you need to consider for the Home Islands developing the following:

- Hexes with static aviation support. These need to the AF 8 or 9 to benefit from the x2 aviation support. The JNAF static unts get a nice TOE upgrade in '44, but even the IJA ones give you 180 aviation support without you having to move any units around.
- Major HI/LI centers need at least level 7 forts. Tokyo, Osaka/Kyoto and Nagasaki/Sasebo all could do with level 9 forts.
- Airbase expansion in undeveloped industrial bases. A few bases fall in this category as they've aircraft industry but either an undeveloped or no airbase to provide CAP. These bases are Maebashi, Gifu, Okayama, Hamamatsu and Tsu. Might be some others I've missed.
- Clear terrain bases that are likely invasion sites. These need to be 8+ to fend of the extreme naval and air bombings.
- Likely invasion sites that are x2 or x3 terrain. You can probably get away with level 5 or so forts here, but the higher the better.

For Manchuria:

- Level 6+ forts in the interior to absorb the Soviet '45 offensive: Yenki, Mutankiang, Harbin, Changchun, Mukden and Anshan. The bigger the better here, especially for Yenki and Mutankiang.

For Korea:
- Level 9 fort for Keijo as the last ditch defensive line for the Kwantung Army.
- Airbase at Chinhae for the static base force.
- Airbases at Taikyu and Taiden for the only inland airbases in South Korea (Read: no naval bombardments)
- Level 9 fort at Rashin to block soviet advance from Vladivostok.
- Level 6+ fort at Seishin to block Soviet advance from Vladivostok.

Keep in mind, this is just what I'd like to have, let alone what you can actually manage.

While it's expensive in terms of supply consumption, just remember that forts are a permanent bonus to defending AV. Forts, when combined with good terrain can go a long way to mitigate the "out of supply" penalty. In my view, 1 million supply invested in forts is better than 1 million supply sitting at a base: the base supply can be bombed, the forts are only going down to Allied units attacking them.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/20/2018 4:01:00 PM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3902
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 4:01:45 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3390
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

  • pilot quality
  • airspeed
  • manoeuvrability
  • durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred


Would you provide an example of what you consider an intelligent approach vector?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3903
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 4:30:04 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

  • pilot quality
  • airspeed
  • manoeuvrability
  • durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred


Would you provide an example of what you consider an intelligent approach vector?


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2793785&mpage=1&key=kamikaze�

Alfred

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3904
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 5:16:52 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9268
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Mike - you should be less concerned with how much HI and more concerned with building as many of your late-war planes as you can now. Planes in pools can't be bombed. Factories can. Better to have 1200 Franks in the pools than to have the HI to build 1200 Franks but no factories able to reliably do so. Obviously that's an extreme, but it's the best way to hedge the bet IMO.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3905
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 5:40:11 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15730
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Hi Loka. That's an excellent point. Unfortunately, none of my late war fighters are operational yet. Here's what I plan on building:

Sam
Shinden
Ki-84r
Ki-201

The Frank will be operational 2/44. I'm planning on using a lot of them, so, based on your guidance, I'm going to start increasing my Frank factories. I currently have 3x60. By February, I can have that up to 3x150. Then I can start pumping them into the pool.

The other three, well, it's gonna be awhile.

Still pondering what to do with the Ha-34 factory...

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3906
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 11:18:57 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Frank b, if you ever build it, is unbelievable against bombers;




Pretty sizable effort from day one here, and its just gonna get bigger. I really want all those cannon. Not sure how it will all work out.

quote:

I'm not saying you RnD all 6, I'm only saying those are the ones to choose from. I typically only RnD 2 or 3 of the 6.


Doing 5 of the 6. Might be too much. Some getting more effort than others.

quote:

if you are watching your MSY production. I don't build much, that saves a lot of HI.


There're just some things I can't do in the game. One of them is to turn off MSY production. I know its probably 'wrong', but I ask myself, would/could Japan have actually done such a thing IRL. And yes, I know this is not RL, its a game, but there're some lines I just can't get myself to cross. That may change someday. Not to say that in the late game when the 'walls are tumbling down' I won't do it to try and 'save the Empire'.

quote:

6M supply is earmarked ONLY for building the final fighter factories + engines to support them.


OK, got it, and that's an investment over time, which one is working one every turn. At least when he/she gets to the late war models, and their engines.

quote:

You may not be building 1000 Tojo/month, but seen a lot of players do it. Even 300 month means you spent 600K supply.


Not even. As I said IIa production never exceeded 3/day, and as of now IIc production is approaching 5/day. I'll probably keep that 'til near the end of '43 and reassess at that time.

quote:

After 9/44 you will be getting a lot of new units


9/44??? I've been keeping my eye on the new units that begin to come in late '43.

quote:

You will burn 2000 - 5000 ARM per day.


Crap.

quote:

And it is very nice to have 6 - 8 groups of Franks operating by Sept '43


Most likely not gonna have that, but I reassessed my R&D, and it looks to become operational by then at least. A bit late and will maybe make things tricky, but we'll see.

quote:

My engine production total right now (op and R&D) is 2430,


Mine's about 1700/month at the moment and rising. So I don't see me having any more than you by the time I get to where you are. I hope you're right or I may be in trouble too.

quote:

Ha-32/33/35 get fairly large and early '42 is a struggle with engines.


Yup.

quote:

All this and fighting a war too!!!




quote:

For about a year, I had 500 of my ARM factories shut off.


Yeah, I turned mine down a bit when I had banked 100k, and a bit more with 150k. Based on Pax's comments it may have been a mistake. Right now I've 220 off and will probably turn it all back on at the end of Feb. '43.

quote:

So, what's a "lot" of Ki-115/Tokas? I currently have 540 Ha-35 factories and can continue to pump out engines until they become operational.


Consider this... Japan 'burned' some 1900 Kami's (IIRC) at Okinawa in early '45. Add to that those that went before(?), and that she had about 5000 more in reserve for the defense of the HI. So at least 7k of all types. My guess is that you'll need a bit more than that. Subtract what you have, or may have by then, and build your 115's.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3907
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 11:21:11 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

  • pilot quality
  • airspeed
  • manoeuvrability
  • durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred


Now that's the best info I've gotten' on kami's since I started playing. As usual by Alfred.

Thank you once more.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3908
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 11:25:23 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

In no particular order, you need to consider for the Home Islands developing the following:

- Hexes with static aviation support. These need to the AF 8 or 9 to benefit from the x2 aviation support. The JNAF static unts get a nice TOE upgrade in '44, but even the IJA ones give you 180 aviation support without you having to move any units around.
- Major HI/LI centers need at least level 7 forts. Tokyo, Osaka/Kyoto and Nagasaki/Sasebo all could do with level 9 forts.
- Airbase expansion in undeveloped industrial bases. A few bases fall in this category as they've aircraft industry but either an undeveloped or no airbase to provide CAP. These bases are Maebashi, Gifu, Okayama, Hamamatsu and Tsu. Might be some others I've missed.
- Clear terrain bases that are likely invasion sites. These need to be 8+ to fend of the extreme naval and air bombings.
- Likely invasion sites that are x2 or x3 terrain. You can probably get away with level 5 or so forts here, but the higher the better.

For Manchuria:

- Level 6+ forts in the interior to absorb the Soviet '45 offensive: Yenki, Mutankiang, Harbin, Changchun, Mukden and Anshan. The bigger the better here, especially for Yenki and Mutankiang.

For Korea:
- Level 9 fort for Keijo as the last ditch defensive line for the Kwantung Army.
- Airbase at Chinhae for the static base force.
- Airbases at Taikyu and Taiden for the only inland airbases in South Korea (Read: no naval bombardments)
- Level 9 fort at Rashin to block soviet advance from Vladivostok.
- Level 6+ fort at Seishin to block Soviet advance from Vladivostok.


Food for thought. Great stuff to consider here. Nice to see I'm already doing most of it. I'll have to take a new look at some areas though.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3909
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/20/2018 11:27:58 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Well here I am again, staying way too long.

Just wish to add one thing. This discussion has been utterly fantastic, and informative. Thanks to all who have contributed.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3910
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 3:21:07 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

  • pilot quality
  • airspeed
  • manoeuvrability
  • durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Tie this with what Erik wrote in one of the other threads. We really don't know how the 'boom' is calculated for a kami. Bomb load may or may not even be part of it.

So, as Alfred states, getting through with a hit is the biggest priority. Speed, DUR, MAN and pilot skill would be the main determinants on your kami model.
Having numbers advantage in a kami attack, for me, is always the single biggest determinant in the outcome. Altitude, attack cohesiveness, etc also matter, but numbers still out weigh everything else. That's just me.




_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3911
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 5:22:06 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

  • pilot quality
  • airspeed
  • manoeuvrability
  • durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Tie this with what Erik wrote in one of the other threads. We really don't know how the 'boom' is calculated for a kami. Bomb load may or may not even be part of it.

So, as Alfred states, getting through with a hit is the biggest priority. Speed, DUR, MAN and pilot skill would be the main determinants on your kami model.
Having numbers advantage in a kami attack, for me, is always the single biggest determinant in the outcome. Altitude, attack cohesiveness, etc also matter, but numbers still out weigh everything else. That's just me.





Hmm, depends on what you mean by "bomb load"

For a subject which exercises so much the minds of players, both the manual and the devs over the years have been very reticent to provide much guidance. I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Kamikaze air operations in AE are very similar to what transpired in classical WITP. The two main changes made for AE were::

(a) fix the bug which saw kamikaze aircraft attack land bases (this fix was one of the last classical WITP bug fixes), and

(b) improve the chances of a kamikaze strike penetrating Allied CAP. This mainly involved addressing the classical WITP problem of late war uber CAP neutering any kind of air strike.

IRL the damage from kamikaze aircraft came not just from their ordnance but also from their fuel and mass of airframe. If AE were a simulation this would require every single different eligible aircraft model having its mass + fuel + specific mission ordnance factored into the kamikaze combat algorithm. For each plane which hits. Instead, partly because that level of detail is not tracked, in AE this is all abstracted down to a relatively few inputs into the kamikaze combat algorithm.

What really matters for the abstraction is whether a kamikaze hit is achieved. That means first successfully getting through Allied CAP (the primary Allied defence) and flak. A kamikaze plane which hits gets only 1 single hit, not multiple hits to reflect ordnance + fuel + mass. The damage inflicted (don't forget there are always die rolls in Grigsby algorithms) is determined from the type of hit which is abstracted. There is no differentiation made between different aircraft models of the same aircraft type. Except for determining the type of abstracted hit to be applied, aircraft models without a bomb are not discriminated against compared to those aircraft models of the same aircraft type with a bomb.

Alfred


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3912
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 10:10:21 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Alfred




What would be the chances of sucess for a pretty please, if we could muster an appropriate person to voice it?

I mean now that you have crossed the line of providing information to which we are not entitled anyway... ?

Hartwig

< Message edited by modrow -- 9/21/2018 10:11:48 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3913
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 12:47:53 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3390
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3914
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 2:42:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26000
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.


The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3915
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 3:49:35 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Alfred




What would be the chances of sucess for a pretty please, if we could muster an appropriate person to voice it?

I mean now that you have crossed the line of providing information to which we are not entitled anyway... ?

Hartwig


I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 3916
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 3:57:11 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.


The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.


That is only one of the reasons. A much more important reason is protection of copyright. There are two different copyright holders involved and that further complicates the ownership question. With regard to 2By3's copyright, wdolson has hinted on various occasions that there are other reasons besides a narrow interpretation of copyright protection why they will never disclose the algorithms which belong to them.

Alfred

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3917
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 5:28:15 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.



This is both a naïve and myopic statement. One which you have repeated ad nauseum over the years notwithstanding the rebutals which have been consistently provided.

1. You came to AE from the Paradox universe, in particular from HOI. It beggars belief that you can imply with a straight face that Paradox game manuals, in particular HOI game manuals, provide more details and greater assistance than the AE manual. I can only conclude that you have never bothered to read the Paradox manuals. I have so you can treat the rest of the posters on this forum as fools buut you can't fool me.

2. You obviously have never bothered to read the Paradox forums if again you are implying with a straight face that they provide more details and greater assistance than the AE forum. Paradox devs do not, I repeat, do not participate in their forums. Their developer diaries, which are a relatively recent development, are nothing more than advertisements for their forthcoming games. Paradox forums are totally dependent on the goodwill of fellow players providing the benefit of their experience. In that they are most definitely not better than the AE forum. Furthermore the AE forum, for 5 years after the game release, had regular contributions from many of the devs. Those contributions greatly expanded on the manual's explanation of both game mechanics and rationale for game design decisions. None of that is found in the Paradox forums and was provided for free so for you to consistently dismiss the efforts of the devs to support the game merely shows you to be an ingratiate at best.

3. No AE patch has ever been charged for. there have been 7 official AE patches (which included substantial game updates) plus there are the unofficial beta patches. Paradox incorporates their patches into cosmetic updates which allows them to justify charging their customer base a substantial sum of money to maintain their base game up to date. I have never seen you state that you would be quite happy to have paid money to receive any of those patches and updates. Where in this world, where the average mortal has to be engaged in paid employment in order to meet their living expense, (oh I forget you live in academia although whether that is as an academic or merely as a student has never been made clear), is it expected,, as a right, to receive support and information always in a pro bono capacity. Try to walk in the shoes of the AE devs and imagine how much more additional assistance they could have provided if their participation generated additional revenue post game release.

4. No one doubts that you personally lack the skills, but if you could tear yourself away once from thinking about yourself, I can assure you that there are individuals on this planet who would be greatly assisted in reverse engineering the game and creating their own PTO games to compete with AE if the detail you consistently demand, were to be provided. There are also PBEM game security considerations which come into play but you would have to know something about the world outside of your own personal universe in order to appreciate that.

5. The Combat Reports and the various other relevant game reports/intel provide much more accurate information than a real world commander gets. You want more unrealistic information, turn off Fog of War. Stop complaining if you have Fog of War turned on. Take a course on computer programming to try to gain some understanding as to what some of the practical limitations are.

6. You yourself in your AARs demonstrate a good grasp of game mechanics. Your play is not hampered by a lack of knowledge of game mechanics. You regularly post to other players AARs detailed posts explaining options based on game mechanics. How is all this possible if the detail of game mechanics has not been provided by the AE devs. Or are you expecting us all to believe that you are only the second person in the history of the world to have been visited by the Holy Spirit, the other being Mary the mother of Jesus whose gift from the Holy Spirit was the foetus of Jesus, whereas in your case the gift was all the detail knowledge of AE game mechanics which the devs allegedly did not provide. One does not have to be Richard Dawkins to not believe that to be the case. Instead your own statement about the lack of knowledge of what causes LCU artillery to fire at ships in bombardment/artillery TFs shows up this nonsense for what it really is for I have provided detailed posts on how it operates, and my posts have drawn upon earlier posts publicly provided by the devs. I have never claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit.


The fundamental difference between you and me is that whenever I have been uncertain about some game mechanic I have gone and researched the public resources and invariably found the answer. An answer which ultimately derives from the devs. Faced with the same situation, you don't make the same effort or if you do make the effort you can't be honest enough to admit the answer has ultimately been derived from the devs. For you it is so much easier to just blame the devs, and in doing so you consistently slander them. What is really astonishing is how someone in the academic world can survive with such poor research skills or failure to correctly cite and acknowledge the sources.

Alfred

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3918
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 5:38:35 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26000
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.


The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.


That is only one of the reasons. A much more important reason is protection of copyright. There are two different copyright holders involved and that further complicates the ownership question. With regard to 2By3's copyright, wdolson has hinted on various occasions that there are other reasons besides a narrow interpretation of copyright protection why they will never disclose the algorithms which belong to them.

Alfred

I recall - I think it was Joe but I don't firmly recall who - saying it was also Gary Grigsby's philosophy, which makes the original IP considerations apply in both ways.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3919
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 5:58:54 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15730
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Hi guys. The dialogue of the past couple of days has been wonderful. Unfortunately, it's going in a direction I'd rather not visit.

We now know that Kamikaze effectiveness is based primarily on Pilot Quality, Air Speed, Maneuverability and Durability. The first has nothing to do with the airframe so I've looked at the remaining 3 to see what airframes might be the most suitable to be used as Kamikazes.

I did something pretty simple to start. There are 164 different Japanese airframes in scenario 1. I looked at the top 30 for each of the 3 categories to see if anything showed up in all of them.

Here are the upper and lower limits for the top 30 in the categories:

Speed: 559-373
Maneuverability: 49-28
Durability: 48-36

There were no airframes that showed up in the top 30 in all 3 categories and only 4 airframes that showed up in the top 30 in 2 of the categories:

Ki-84r: Speed #10, Man #30
Ki-93-Ib: Speed #16, Dur #21
Ki-93-Ia: Speed #17, Dur #22
Ki-102c: Speed #30, Dur #28

Fighters were most common in the speed (late fighters) and maneuverability (early fighters) categories while the 4E flying boats and 2E bombers/transports were primarily in the durability category. No surprises there.

To me, it seems that if you want to focus on a particular airframe for use as a Kamikaze, you need to focus on one of the three categories and train your pilots.

My initial thoughts are to either focus on maneuverability or durability for Kamikazes because I'm not all that excited in using my late war fighters as Kamikazes.

Note that the Ki-115b and Toka are tied for #18 in the speed category.

What to you all think?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3920
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 6:16:49 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred


Well, that analogy makes you not only a member but a pinnacle of the populares, favouring the cause of the plebs (players), whereas the point you make is rather an optimates one, defending the mos maiorum and the patricians (developers), is it not?

Hartwig

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3921
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 11:04:33 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.




Here is why...my two cents...if they did expose the algorithm than it would relatively simple for players catch combat results that couldn't happen by said algorithm.

Thus, by keeping it secret the catch-all phrase,"Fog of War" is their get out of jail card.


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3922
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/21/2018 11:14:48 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.





Alfred



Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3923
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 12:55:45 AM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

...

To me, it seems that if you want to focus on a particular airframe for use as a Kamikaze, you need to focus on one of the three categories and train your pilots.

My initial thoughts are to either focus on maneuverability or durability for Kamikazes because I'm not all that excited in using my late war fighters as Kamikazes.

Note that the Ki-115b and Toka are tied for #18 in the speed category.

What to you all think?



I am focusing on a mixture of airframes so that I get a force with good performances in Speed, Maneuverability and Durability. And more importantly NUMBERS.

...NUMBERS... So that "Once Again into the Breach" echoes!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3924
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 2:45:39 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: modrow


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred


Well, that analogy makes you not only a member but a pinnacle of the populares, favouring the cause of the plebs (players), whereas the point you make is rather an optimates one, defending the mos maiorum and the patricians (developers), is it not?

Hartwig


And therein you capture perfectly the fundamental dilemma starting with the Gracchi which destroyed the Republic.

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 3925
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 3:55:52 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.





Alfred



Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.


The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 3926
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 4:10:25 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.




Here is why...my two cents...if they did expose the algorithm than it would relatively simple for players catch combat results that couldn't happen by said algorithm.

Thus, by keeping it secret the catch-all phrase,"Fog of War" is their get out of jail card.




Another word which is missing from your dictionary.

Randoms.

The number generated by die rolls. What allows for something to not happen even though all the other thresholds built into the algorithm have been met. What allows for the capture in a computer game, which otherwise would be merely a spread sheet with rigid predetermined outcomes, of that old military axiom that "no plan survives contact with the enemy".

If you really think "Fog of War" is the devs get out of jail card, then play with it toggled OFF. No dev has ever insisted that the game can only be played with it toggled ON. Your call, you do have free will to choose. Rather unfair to blame the devs for the consequences of your own decisions.

Alfred

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 3927
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 10:10:52 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3390
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

This is both a naïve and myopic statement. One which you have repeated ad nauseum over the years notwithstanding the rebutals which have been consistently provided.

1. You came to AE from the Paradox universe, in particular from HOI. It beggars belief that you can imply with a straight face that Paradox game manuals, in particular HOI game manuals, provide more details and greater assistance than the AE manual. I can only conclude that you have never bothered to read the Paradox manuals. I have so you can treat the rest of the posters on this forum as fools buut you can't fool me.


I won't defend Paradox, there's a reason why I've not bought any games developed by them since Crusader Kings II. Plus, I've had the AGEOD series of games take over that gaming niche in the past few years.

However, you'll agree with me that they're very transparent in how various modifiers influence combat and other aspects of the game
.
I'm most familiar with HoI 3, and in that, in the case of ground combat, one can easily see the respective numeric influences of various issues. Crossing a river to attack a mountain province, for example, has a series of modifiers that you can look at and make an informed judgement about the risk of making such a move. In AE we don't get that, just the information that river crossings, when opposed, cause a shock attack and disruption. How much disruption? Doesn't say.

quote:

2. You obviously have never bothered to read the Paradox forums if again you are implying with a straight face that they provide more details and greater assistance than the AE forum. Paradox devs do not, I repeat, do not participate in their forums. Their developer diaries, which are a relatively recent development, are nothing more than advertisements for their forthcoming games. Paradox forums are totally dependent on the goodwill of fellow players providing the benefit of their experience. In that they are most definitely not better than the AE forum. Furthermore the AE forum, for 5 years after the game release, had regular contributions from many of the devs. Those contributions greatly expanded on the manual's explanation of both game mechanics and rationale for game design decisions. None of that is found in the Paradox forums and was provided for free so for you to consistently dismiss the efforts of the devs to support the game merely shows you to be an ingratiate at best.


What I will say is that the notion of Paradox's developer diaries was a good one in that it outlined game mechanics in a structured way, that you can refer back to as needed. While I more than agree that the level of support from the devs on the AE forums is far superior to that over at Paradox, the fustrating thing is that the comments are scattered across the forum and picking up the various threads can be tedious at best and sisyphean at worst.

quote:


3. No AE patch has ever been charged for. there have been 7 official AE patches (which included substantial game updates) plus there are the unofficial beta patches. Paradox incorporates their patches into cosmetic updates which allows them to justify charging their customer base a substantial sum of money to maintain their base game up to date. I have never seen you state that you would be quite happy to have paid money to receive any of those patches and updates. Where in this world, where the average mortal has to be engaged in paid employment in order to meet their living expense, (oh I forget you live in academia although whether that is as an academic or merely as a student has never been made clear), is it expected,, as a right, to receive support and information always in a pro bono capacity. Try to walk in the shoes of the AE devs and imagine how much more additional assistance they could have provided if their participation generated additional revenue post game release.


I've actually been quite impressed with the Paradox model regarding updates/DLC, at least regarding Crusader Kings II. The correct balance between paid content, essential bugfixes and cosmetic trinkets has been on the mark bar a single dubious addition (retinues being locked behind DLC, IIRC).

AE has a steep up-front cost, but in terms of the hours played, one of the best gaming investments I've ever made. Would I be happy to pay for continued updates and patches? Absolutely!

FWIW, I did my undergraduate degree in psychology and finished my MSc in Clinical Psychology last year. I self funded the MSc.

I also don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to have purchased a product and to then receive information and support on the working of that product, especially in the context of software. The fact that support for released software is normally a drain on resources is well known, and even more so in the case of an older game such as AE. It's extremely fustrating to see what's already been done with comparatively little and to see what potentially could be done.

quote:

4. No one doubts that you personally lack the skills, but if you could tear yourself away once from thinking about yourself, I can assure you that there are individuals on this planet who would be greatly assisted in reverse engineering the game and creating their own PTO games to compete with AE if the detail you consistently demand, were to be provided. There are also PBEM game security considerations which come into play but you would have to know something about the world outside of your own personal universe in order to appreciate that.


I think if you've a serious commitment to reverse engineering AE and have the requisite knowledge and skills, what information is given or not given won't make the slightest difference.

quote:

5. The Combat Reports and the various other relevant game reports/intel provide much more accurate information than a real world commander gets. You want more unrealistic information, turn off Fog of War. Stop complaining if you have Fog of War turned on. Take a course on computer programming to try to gain some understanding as to what some of the practical limitations are.


No, Combat Reports provide much less information than a real world commander gets, especially regarding his own side.

Leaders (-) for example. What unit(s) suffered the penalty? How big was it? What aspect of the role did they fail? Same with supply, what units suffered from low supply, or disruption or fatigue?

Even in losses: a deliberate attack costs 100 squads destroyed, what units are they from?

It's not impossible, one stellar example can be found in AEGOD games and the combat reports they generate, where it's possible to drill down into the report to see how battles went right (or wrong).

quote:

6. You yourself in your AARs demonstrate a good grasp of game mechanics. Your play is not hampered by a lack of knowledge of game mechanics. You regularly post to other players AARs detailed posts explaining options based on game mechanics. How is all this possible if the detail of game mechanics has not been provided by the AE devs. Or are you expecting us all to believe that you are only the second person in the history of the world to have been visited by the Holy Spirit, the other being Mary the mother of Jesus whose gift from the Holy Spirit was the foetus of Jesus, whereas in your case the gift was all the detail knowledge of AE game mechanics which the devs allegedly did not provide. One does not have to be Richard Dawkins to not believe that to be the case. Instead your own statement about the lack of knowledge of what causes LCU artillery to fire at ships in bombardment/artillery TFs shows up this nonsense for what it really is for I have provided detailed posts on how it operates, and my posts have drawn upon earlier posts publicly provided by the devs. I have never claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit.


The fundamental difference between you and me is that whenever I have been uncertain about some game mechanic I have gone and researched the public resources and invariably found the answer. An answer which ultimately derives from the devs. Faced with the same situation, you don't make the same effort or if you do make the effort you can't be honest enough to admit the answer has ultimately been derived from the devs. For you it is so much easier to just blame the devs, and in doing so you consistently slander them. What is really astonishing is how someone in the academic world can survive with such poor research skills or failure to correctly cite and acknowledge the sources.


We're not as fundamentally different as you might think, to the point that it may make you uncomfortable. I have a research background, I like references. I like to see someone say something, then provide a reference back to the evidence for that statement. That way, someone looking for more information can follow the reference and see for themselves. Trying to do any sort of search for information on the forum is extremely frustrating, the sites native search engine is difficult, and while Google is much easier to manage, it's not ideal for filtering out other Matrix titles with similar subject matters. Two weeks ago I was trying to find information I remember being posted to a specific thread several years back, and even knowing the correct thread still had to result to manually clicking through the thread to find the correct post. It's more than likely it's my inability to make the sites native search engine work optimally, but others have found it clunky as well.

There's also the fact that you've been active on the forums since 2006, with AE being released in 2009. That's a lot of information, posts and interaction that I've missed. You'll have a much better notion of the reliability of sources than I ever will.

I'm not a stupid person; more often than not I'm the idiot in the room, but I have the capacity to learn. If there's the abundance of information on the mechanics of AE actually out there in the forum in enough detail at to help make informed decisions, it's now so difficult to access that it may as well not exist anyways. The FAQ thread remains a glimmer of what could have been if there had been a centralized and structured method to posting info on game mechanics...

In fairness, I should stop blaming the devs; they weren't to know that the information they were disseminating would be so hard to access again nearly ten years down the line.

Anyhow, that's the last I'll say on this topic in Mike's AAR, we've diverted from it enough already. Feel free to take it to PM or elsewhere on the forum Alfred, I genuinely enjoy your contributions and viewpoint.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/22/2018 10:12:21 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3928
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 11:22:22 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

but my outlook is that they should be gone in favor of the Frank by 7/43


7/43???? Oh, I hope I haven't screwed up here, I won't have the Frank that early. I've got one factory to 30 and another close. The oddball (55 IIRC) is repairing well, but it'll be some time before its finished. The other three R&D I have working I brought in a while later, and they've a way to go. I have the engine bonus to move things along, but... I'm thinking I'll get it the end of '43 beginning '44. Was looking for the George to carry me to that point. I know it may put a bit of a strain on my IJN fighter pilots, but to date I've kept them out of the fight as much as possible. I think I've only one front-line right now in the Solomon's. I've got the Army doing most of the job.

Very achievable, but you need to focus on it. 12x30 RnD will usually do it. And it is very nice to have 6 - 8 groups of Franks operating by Sept '43 when the new Bolts turn up.
Then in Sept/Oct '43 I will put 9x30 RnD on the Frank 'r' model, and build the remaining 3 production factories up to 3x60 or 3x90. That will give me 450 -> 540 /month Frank in mid '44 which is generally what I target for that model.
Frank 'r' is a final model, so it is part of the 3000/mo fighter plan for late '45 and thus there are no real concerns about having 'too many'. the ~500/mo will get increased in '44 to whatever I decide to be my final Frank production run rate: ~600 -> 900 /month.
If I choose the Ki-94 as my 2nd IJA fighter, then lower numbers of Frank r. If I go for the Ki-83 or Ki-201, then likely higher numbers.


I'm just catching up here so sorry to take this back a page.

In my game in Jan/45 I'm making only 350 Franks, but I've continued making other planes because I know they can still be effective. Making 3,000 fighters a month means you're probably also losing that many!! I wouldn't want to plan for that.

Kamis are probably best used interspersed with standard strikes, and with a plan to only use them when there is a clearly vulnerable target you can nearly guarantee will be hit.

There is so much emphasis around building planes here and the cost of that, but I might rather invest in forts that are so high Allied landings on major targets will delay their schedule. If they can't get close, they can't wreck the industry as easily. I've already made the mistake in this late game of not building forts high enough in a few places within the inner 20 hex circle around the Home Islands.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3929
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 11:33:00 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ok, looking at end game engine factories and it ain't pretty. There are 20 factories total. With some 3500 high end fighter engines and maybe 2000 more for any Kamikaze planes you choose to build, that doesn't leave much for anything else. Say 6k engines total, that's an average of 300 per factory. My engine production total right now (op and R&D) is 2430, less than half. And a lot of them aren't needed for end game planes. Yikes!




One way to make use of the Ha-35 is to continue to build the Nick Ia. (I don't upgrade this to subsequent versions anyway). It's still a decent bomber killer in 45 and you can pay PP to convert the 2E bomber groups to make them FB, thus using the Nicks for training pilots and leaving your fighters free to fight. You will need a lot of pilots! If they're used for training the extra supply isn't a big deal

The Nick is also an excellent kami, with high durability and better speed than the 2E bombers (although the Peggy-T is about as good).

I also keep the Oscar IV airframes going at a good clip. I find their range as escorts and final version with cannons decent in general defence.

No matter what you'll need a lot of the Ha-43 and this will be your biggest engine expense late. Start building them early as RnD factories and bread them around.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3930
Page:   <<   < prev  129 130 [131] 132 133   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) Page: <<   < prev  129 130 [131] 132 133   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

0.352