Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is radar working properly?

 
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 >> Tech Support >> Is radar working properly? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 4:09:06 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Fighting off strategic bombing attacks on Japan, and it seems like the time to intercept are exceedingly low all the time, leading to very few passes and very light air to air combat (and hence many bombers cleared through). The time to detection is always very low -- Is rader working correctly?

Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 23
A6M5 Zero x 168
J2M3 Jack x 16
N1K1-J George x 84
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 14
Ki-100-I Tony x 18

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 259
F4U-1A Corsair x 70
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 56

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
F4U-1A Corsair: 3 destroyed
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

////////////////////////////////

Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 18
A6M5 Zero x 128
J2M3 Jack x 15
N1K1-J George x 74
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 13
Ki-100-I Tony x 17

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 2 destroyed, 17 damaged


/////////////////////


Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 7 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 9
A6M5 Zero x 96
J2M3 Jack x 12
N1K1-J George x 64
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 11
Ki-100-I Tony x 13

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 9

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged


/////////////////////////

Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 26 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 9
A6M5 Zero x 95
J2M3 Jack x 11
N1K1-J George x 62
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 11
Ki-100-I Tony x 12

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 3 destroyed, 2 damaged


////////////////////////////////

Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 27 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 8
A6M5 Zero x 90
J2M3 Jack x 11
N1K1-J George x 60
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 11
Ki-100-I Tony x 11

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged


/////////////////////


Antoher rather odd thing is that the bombers can fly directly over about 6 (edit: actually directly over only 3, including Tokyo) major cities and fighter bases (all with radar and hundreds of fighters) totally unmolested until they reach less than 40 nm of their target I.e., there is no such thing as en-route interception...

< Message edited by rader -- 12/10/2011 4:28:47 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 4:31:05 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25046
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
The intercepts that do take place include the en-route intercepts according to a developer comment from near when AE was released. They abstract them into the one combat sequence instead of showing different ones.

As far as the radar, AFAIK it's working.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 2
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 4:45:58 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
One of the betas fixed radar, I think.

[1108p4]
Fixed Radar range on air detection was overstated by a factor of 2 or 3. Wrong mix of ft, yds, nm, miles [MEM]


In your example best radar detection was 40 nm, which is about 75 km. It's a bit low maybe.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 4:56:03 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

One of the betas fixed radar, I think.

[1108p4]
Fixed Radar range on air detection was overstated by a factor of 2 or 3. Wrong mix of ft, yds, nm, miles [MEM]


In your example best radar detection was 40 nm, which is about 75 km. It's a bit low maybe.



I just checked and according to the editor, the Ta-chi 7 should have a detection range of "145" (and I have one in the city). In the editor, it states that this is in kyards. So that works out to, according to the editor, around 70 NM. The best detection range I got was about half that (40 NM). So how should radar be working? If the radar should have a detection range of 70 NM, shoule dyou expect that raids will be detected at around that range, or is it likely that you will get actual detection at significantly less than that?

EDIT: I noticed that the AA unit (& radar) was in strategic op mode. What is the effect of strategic op mode on AA units? Will radar still work (maybe not?) What about guns? It's reasonable if they don't work (they are packed up), but I suspected that radar would still work. Anyone know?

< Message edited by rader -- 12/10/2011 4:58:23 PM >

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 4
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 4:57:08 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Fighting off strategic bombing attacks on Japan, and it seems like the time to intercept are exceedingly low all the time, leading to very few passes and very light air to air combat (and hence many bombers cleared through). The time to detection is always very low -- Is rader working correctly?


You tell me!

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 5
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 4:58:52 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Fighting off strategic bombing attacks on Japan, and it seems like the time to intercept are exceedingly low all the time, leading to very few passes and very light air to air combat (and hence many bombers cleared through). The time to detection is always very low -- Is rader working correctly?


You tell me!


That's a definite "no"

Also, I would like to report my opponent, Greyjoy, to the kangaroo court. He is using some fighter that we haven't even been able to read the label on because it goes too fast. I think it's somewhere in between P-46 and P-48, but our recognition attempts are all coming out blury.

And what's more, now he's coming on to me. Just look at his last email: "not even if you were a blonde, good looking, nasty Porn-Star called Debbie :-DDD" Well, I guess that's more rejection than proposition.

< Message edited by rader -- 12/10/2011 5:03:58 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 5:05:11 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Fighting off strategic bombing attacks on Japan, and it seems like the time to intercept are exceedingly low all the time, leading to very few passes and very light air to air combat (and hence many bombers cleared through). The time to detection is always very low -- Is rader working correctly?


You tell me!


That's a definite "no"

Also, I would like to report my opponent, Greyjoy, to the kangaroo court. He is using some fighter that we haven't even been able to read the label on because it goes too fast. I think it's somewhere in between P-46 and P-48, but our recognition attempts are all coming out blury.

And what's more, now he's coming on to me. Just look at his last email: "not even if you were a blonde, good looking, nasty Porn-Star called Debbie :-DDD"





Back on topic... as far as i understand it that is the max possible detection range. Each radar gets a dice and roll to determine how much of those "75" are reached.

At least for me it works the same way...it's just that allied radars are far more efficient

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 7
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 5:07:32 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Fighting off strategic bombing attacks on Japan, and it seems like the time to intercept are exceedingly low all the time, leading to very few passes and very light air to air combat (and hence many bombers cleared through). The time to detection is always very low -- Is rader working correctly?


You tell me!


That's a definite "no"

Also, I would like to report my opponent, Greyjoy, to the kangaroo court. He is using some fighter that we haven't even been able to read the label on because it goes too fast. I think it's somewhere in between P-46 and P-48, but our recognition attempts are all coming out blury.

And what's more, now he's coming on to me. Just look at his last email: "not even if you were a blonde, good looking, nasty Porn-Star called Debbie :-DDD" Well, I guess that's more rejection than proposition.



Why didn't you quote the part where i ask you if you support the Dallas Cowboys? Don't be afraid to...it's a very good team and their HALL of fame is so BIG and LONG that every one would want to be there....with them






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GreyJoy -- 12/10/2011 5:09:26 PM >

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 8
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 5:15:53 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

One of the betas fixed radar, I think.

[1108p4]
Fixed Radar range on air detection was overstated by a factor of 2 or 3. Wrong mix of ft, yds, nm, miles [MEM]


In your example best radar detection was 40 nm, which is about 75 km. It's a bit low maybe.



I just checked and according to the editor, the Ta-chi 7 should have a detection range of "145" (and I have one in the city). In the editor, it states that this is in kyards. So that works out to, according to the editor, around 70 NM. The best detection range I got was about half that (40 NM). So how should radar be working? If the radar should have a detection range of 70 NM, shoule dyou expect that raids will be detected at around that range, or is it likely that you will get actual detection at significantly less than that?

EDIT: I noticed that the AA unit (& radar) was in strategic op mode. What is the effect of strategic op mode on AA units? Will radar still work (maybe not?) What about guns? It's reasonable if they don't work (they are packed up), but I suspected that radar would still work. Anyone know?



Well besides the fact the equipment is all packaged up and not deployed in StratMode How could it still work? A RADAR has to have power supplies to the equipment and most of all to the antenna's .. multi Kwatts .. so maybe all packaged up a LYB could plug the scope in, but all they would just see is the scope flatline It takes the antenna's input to make the lines move ...

There is one other factor at work here .. all the Bombers are coming in above 20K feet by home rule. Thus climb rates and time to altitude are at play here for the units ready on the runway, which I understand the game calculates. So imposing a HR to lessen StratBombing effectiveness brings in slightly less effective fighter intercepts ..always a trade off ..

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 9
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 6:20:44 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:



Well besides the fact the equipment is all packaged up and not deployed in StratMode How could it still work? A RADAR has to have power supplies to the equipment and most of all to the antenna's .. multi Kwatts .. so maybe all packaged up a LYB could plug the scope in, but all they would just see is the scope flatline It takes the antenna's input to make the lines move ...

There is one other factor at work here .. all the Bombers are coming in above 20K feet by home rule. Thus climb rates and time to altitude are at play here for the units ready on the runway, which I understand the game calculates. So imposing a HR to lessen StratBombing effectiveness brings in slightly less effective fighter intercepts ..always a trade off ..


Yeah, I'm not sure the HR actually helps reduce the borkedness of strat bombing...

< Message edited by rader -- 12/10/2011 6:21:04 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 10
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 6:49:56 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:



Well besides the fact the equipment is all packaged up and not deployed in StratMode How could it still work? A RADAR has to have power supplies to the equipment and most of all to the antenna's .. multi Kwatts .. so maybe all packaged up a LYB could plug the scope in, but all they would just see is the scope flatline It takes the antenna's input to make the lines move ...

There is one other factor at work here .. all the Bombers are coming in above 20K feet by home rule. Thus climb rates and time to altitude are at play here for the units ready on the runway, which I understand the game calculates. So imposing a HR to lessen StratBombing effectiveness brings in slightly less effective fighter intercepts ..always a trade off ..


Yeah, I'm not sure the HR actually helps reduce the borkedness of strat bombing...


Well in the game with GreyJoy you are being hit by 2E's let alone 4E's in mid '44 ... That is just not historical to compare as far as Japan but the damage might be quite comparible to Germany at the same time using the same airframes .. in May '44 the entire railroad infratructure is dismantled so no units can move by rail, oil production facilites are obliterate .. any planes built have little fuel to fly ... This with targets dispersed over thousands of kilometers .. Honshu is a little more compressed ... and in Eurpoe it took the Mustang to penatrate deep into Germany .. right now P-40's can sweep into Honshu ..

I am not so sure that StratBombing is soooo "borked" .. What the HR did was to eliminate low level night bombing of manpower using incendiaries OTOH .. 4E's and 2E's in the mix makes attacking strategic targets directly a much better choice.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 11
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 7:35:38 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Sort of, except the 2Es are mostly out of strat bombing range and aren't participating. But yes, the sweeping fighters certainly help.

It seems that one good raid is basically enough to destroy everything of value in a city even if there is tons of fighter and flak opposition. I noticed this in the jzanes game which is why I put the 20k ft HR in. To be honest, I actually don't know if it is realistic that you can destroy pretty much everything of value in an entire city in a single day - but it does "seem" ridiculously overpowered to me. How many times did the allies bomb the Ruhr?

And if the bombers are hitting multiple targets in the same day (i.e., different factories, or factories and airfields, or factories and airfields and ports), shouldn't they come in as separate raids? How can you have one big formation of 600 bombers hitting multiple parts of a city at the same time? Actually, that might be a better HR: you can only target one type of industrial target per turn (manpower or one factory). The way strat bombing works, you'd be guaranteed to nuke the factory, but at least you would need multiple raids to destroy an entire city.

On a related note, the damage reported in the combat replay is always about 3-4 times underestimated - both for strat bombing and for a/c lost (i.e., if the repot claims 5 hits, it is probably 15-20 in actual fact). This is a bit strange because shouldn't your guys be drastically exagerating the damage they are doing and planes they are shooting down? Is there a historical basis for dramatically undereporting damage inflicted and enemy planes shot down? I would have though very much the opposite

< Message edited by rader -- 12/10/2011 7:39:03 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 12
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 8:25:22 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
You might get that feel because in Germany Albert Speer dispursed manufacturies to limit the damage .. but once the operation started to attack the transport infrastructure the gig was up. Although the results i.e. damage is instant, it took a lot of time for the ramifications to ripple into the economy. Read Speers book to get an interesting perspective ..

The strategy in Germany also fluctuated with the wind ... so to speak ..first it was aircraft and ball bearings with some attacks on oil and arnaments . all over the place .. Operation Overlord focused the airpower on Oil and transportation . when that set in ....Germany then felt the pain.

It would be like if a player pulled off a Goering and first started bombing airfieds .. and when they got some damage shifted to random aircraft factories and then after a little damage shift to refineries and oil .. then shift again .. I would bet you would be very very happy with such a strategy because you would simply focus the economy on those things that count. Budget so to speak and keep the pressure on the bombers ... OTOH) a focus on one industry in the oil->fuel->HI ------ Aircraft + Arnament chain and it looks like by my calculations one can break the economy pretty quick. You have a real problem in Honshu in GreyJoy's game because it is not just attriting expensive B-29's like RF you are facing almost every HB resource projected into the battle space.

My understanding in WWII that bomb damage assessment was all over the place., but one thing was for sure .. the Allies knew for example Hamburg was out of it

For me .. I am totally against the robert mcnamara methods for judging success and I play little attention to combat reports except as a tatical assessment of the mission. Where fighters responded and about how many for example. For example, in my game I am trying to interdict bombing on a target. I note losses of 3 one day . 5 another .. 2 another day .. ok .. but .. 48 Lilly's show . 45 Lilly's show . 43 Lilly's show . then 48 Lilly's ... In reality the mission is a failure because the object is to interdict bombing not get a "bomber body count" .... In I were bombing Japan . I would let the mission go a couple of months and observe your ability to repsond .. a much better gauge than combat reports in my opinion ....


(in reply to rader)
Post #: 13
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 8:41:09 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

You might get that feel because in Germany Albert Speer dispursed manufacturies to limit the damage .. but once the operation started to attack the transport infrastructure the gig was up. Although the results i.e. damage is instant, it took a lot of time for the ramifications to ripple into the economy. Read Speers book to get an interesting perspective ..

The strategy in Germany also fluctuated with the wind ... so to speak ..first it was aircraft and ball bearings with some attacks on oil and arnaments . all over the place .. Operation Overlord focused the airpower on Oil and transportation . when that set in ....Germany then felt the pain.

It would be like if a player pulled off a Goering and first started bombing airfieds .. and when they got some damage shifted to random aircraft factories and then after a little damage shift to refineries and oil .. then shift again .. I would bet you would be very very happy with such a strategy because you would simply focus the economy on those things that count. Budget so to speak and keep the pressure on the bombers ... OTOH) a focus on one industry in the oil->fuel->HI ------ Aircraft + Arnament chain and it looks like by my calculations one can break the economy pretty quick. You have a real problem in Honshu in GreyJoy's game because it is not just attriting expensive B-29's like RF you are facing almost every HB resource projected into the battle space.

My understanding in WWII that bomb damage assessment was all over the place., but one thing was for sure .. the Allies knew for example Hamburg was out of it

For me .. I am totally against the robert mcnamara methods for judging success and I play little attention to combat reports except as a tatical assessment of the mission. Where fighters responded and about how many for example. For example, in my game I am trying to interdict bombing on a target. I note losses of 3 one day . 5 another .. 2 another day .. ok .. but .. 48 Lilly's show . 45 Lilly's show . 43 Lilly's show . then 48 Lilly's ... In reality the mission is a failure because the object is to interdict bombing not get a "bomber body count" .... In I were bombing Japan . I would let the mission go a couple of months and observe your ability to repsond .. a much better gauge than combat reports in my opinion ....



I never rely on combat reports... I was just asking if it was WAD that they seem to always under-report (rather than over-report as was historical). Not a balance issue at all, just a curiosity.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 14
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 8:54:51 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
BTW) Read about "operation tidal wave" how 2 bombing groups hit targets and id not hit targets .. it sort of supports your thoughts on some risk of wave like action when multiple targets are involved. I would think it is a factor like weather ?. just another die roll ?..

Just one thing the HR in your game takes out one solution to the problem low level night fire bombing against manpower ..one big target ..

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 12/10/2011 8:56:05 PM >

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 15
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 9:06:59 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
If your radar was in STRATEGIC OP MODE then, as far as I can tell from my own experience, it will NOT have been working. I had a base with a radar unit in STRATEGIC MODE for transport and when that base was bombed the radar which had previously given 40 or 50 minutes warning gave a 5 minute warning ( which is the usual eyesight only level of warning ).


Also, in terms of rejection vs proposition. I think he is merely pointing you away from blond pornstars to other hair colours. So, perhaps more of a change of approach than a direct rejection. He DOES have a thing about hair though --- rather weird


Crackaces,
Actually the higher altitude makes them much more likely to be spotted at long range so it more than compensates for the additional time fighters need to spend climbing. One reason I LOVE 100 feet kamikaze attacks is that it gives my attackers a chance to only be spotted by eyes on the ships some 3 or 4 minutes out. Even with 600 planes on CAP there's only so many attackers they can reach in 3 or 4 minutes. Sure the FlAK is murderous but at 100 feet some almost always get through, which is more than can be said when they are spotted 120 miles and 50 minutes out at 20,000 feet.


rader, Crackaces,
The 20,000 feet HR does help. If you were letting him bomb at 6,000 feet you'd be seeing 4 or 5 times the number of hits you are currently seeing and he'd be hitting 2 cities a day and wiping them out. No, in this case you packed your radar away and he got off so lightly ( in terms of intercepts ) because of that error. Since so few planes intercepted his bomber groups were undisrupted and so their % hit when bombing was near the upper end of the range they can reach from 20,000 feet.

On occasion I've managed to down 50 or 60% of a small strike ( 40 or 50 bombers ) and when that happens the bombing accuracy falls to almost 0%. Unfortunately for you because you packed the radar up and because numbers were on his side you simply didn't disrupt them enough to throw off their aim.

When I play as Allies or Japan in late-war I use a 20,000 or 25,000 foot altitude limit for 4-engineds for all mission types. I find that this prevents them being overpowering and gives a more "historical" feel to their capabilities. No longer do I, as the Allied CO, think "I can close any airbase with 300 B-29s". Instead I find twin-engineds better at tactical strikes and begin saving my 4-engineds for strategic strikes. Even there they have to go back several times to close the factories down completely - all of which feels more realistic when compared to the USBSS etc.




_____________________________

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

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 16
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 9:12:16 PM   
rader


Posts: 1011
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

No, in this case you packed your radar away and he got off so lightly ( in terms of intercepts ) because of that error. Since so few planes intercepted his bomber groups were undisrupted and so their % hit when bombing was near the upper end of the range they can reach from 20,000 feet.



Well, I still actually did have unpacked radar in the hex (2x Tac-hi 6 good for 40 NM), but I hadn't examined the differences between Japanese radars. The packed one was a Ta-chi 7, good for 70 NM. I should have a Ta-chi 7 in each city but overlooked the difference in radar stats (and also assumed 1 radar set was as good as 10).

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 17
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 9:17:52 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

If your radar was in STRATEGIC OP MODE then, as far as I can tell from my own experience, it will NOT have been working. I had a base with a radar unit in STRATEGIC MODE for transport and when that base was bombed the radar which had previously given 40 or 50 minutes warning gave a 5 minute warning ( which is the usual eyesight only level of warning ).


Also, in terms of rejection vs proposition. I think he is merely pointing you away from blond pornstars to other hair colours. So, perhaps more of a change of approach than a direct rejection. He DOES have a thing about hair though --- rather weird


Crackaces,
Actually the higher altitude makes them much more likely to be spotted at long range so it more than compensates for the additional time fighters need to spend climbing. One reason I LOVE 100 feet kamikaze attacks is that it gives my attackers a chance to only be spotted by eyes on the ships some 3 or 4 minutes out. Even with 600 planes on CAP there's only so many attackers they can reach in 3 or 4 minutes. Sure the FlAK is murderous but at 100 feet some almost always get through, which is more than can be said when they are spotted 120 miles and 50 minutes out at 20,000 feet.


rader, Crackaces,
The 20,000 feet HR does help. If you were letting him bomb at 6,000 feet you'd be seeing 4 or 5 times the number of hits you are currently seeing and he'd be hitting 2 cities a day and wiping them out. No, in this case you packed your radar away and he got off so lightly ( in terms of intercepts ) because of that error. Since so few planes intercepted his bomber groups were undisrupted and so their % hit when bombing was near the upper end of the range they can reach from 20,000 feet.

On occasion I've managed to down 50 or 60% of a small strike ( 40 or 50 bombers ) and when that happens the bombing accuracy falls to almost 0%. Unfortunately for you because you packed the radar up and because numbers were on his side you simply didn't disrupt them enough to throw off their aim.

When I play as Allies or Japan in late-war I use a 20,000 or 25,000 foot altitude limit for 4-engineds for all mission types. I find that this prevents them being overpowering and gives a more "historical" feel to their capabilities. No longer do I, as the Allied CO, think "I can close any airbase with 300 B-29s". Instead I find twin-engineds better at tactical strikes and begin saving my 4-engineds for strategic strikes. Even there they have to go back several times to close the factories down completely - all of which feels more realistic when compared to the USBSS etc.





One problem is the random die roll .. but as far as the game is concerned N=3 high compared N=200~ low the times I used my 4E's high over PM the IJ repsonse was in waves .. first 4 aircraft then waves building and planes going home because of fuel .. .. I just assumed that was a climb to altitude algorithum ..Low I see most of the IJ groups forming quickly and giving me hell ..

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 18
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 9:24:42 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well your Ta Chi 6s have a max range of 40nm and you spotted most of the raids at about 26 to 40nm - that seems relatively reasonable radar performance then.

Basically though you need to guard your Ta Chi 7s with your life. Being able to spot the enemy 70nm away makes a huge difference in interception results.


Crackaces,
Well how low are you flying in? 6,000 feet is still high enough for them to spot you a long way out.

Think of it this way. If you come in 6,000 feet and are spotted 30 minutes away any scrambling IJAAF or IJNAF fighter can reach 6,000 feet in 2 minutes from take-off. Now assume you are at 20,000 feet. It might take them 8 minutes to get there. Since you are spotted 30 minutes away the 5 extra minutes doesn't do you a lot of good. I think if you are trying to avoid radar then 2,000 feet is the absolute maximum you can fly at with 1,000 to 100 feet preferred if at all possible.

If you come in at 100 feet then they might only have 4 minutes warning - which means a lot of them won't be able to even be in the air before you are over the target.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 19
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 9:41:54 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25046
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

When I play as Allies or Japan in late-war I use a 20,000 or 25,000 foot altitude limit for 4-engineds for all mission types. I find that this prevents them being overpowering and gives a more "historical" feel to their capabilities. No longer do I, as the Allied CO, think "I can close any airbase with 300 B-29s". Instead I find twin-engineds better at tactical strikes and begin saving my 4-engineds for strategic strikes. Even there they have to go back several times to close the factories down completely - all of which feels more realistic when compared to the USBSS etc.



Scenario 28, et al recently had bomb device settings normalized. A comment was that it would probably reduce the 4EB's ability to close airfields in a single day, etc. Early in the game (first few days), so don't know yet and won't for some time.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 20
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 10:44:35 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6352
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
Dont forget RADAR in Japan would rarely work at 100% due to the mountainous terrain and weather.

Overfly cities, I would assume the hard working guys in mission planning would have tracked the raid around known AAA & fighter defences, maybe they flew around the city rather than over the Emperors Palace.

Play Bombing the Reich, I have a number of times held back my interceptors assuming I knew the bombers target, only to find the last dog leg sent them away from me and I only got to them after they had bombed.

Plug in your RADAR next time.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 10:56:08 PM   
Nemo121


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

Well all of that may be true but the reason raids don't get intercepted by bases they overfly is simply that that functionality doesn't exist in the code.

Given that Japan didn't have a coastal chain of radar sets etc etc that was a reasonable design decision. The problem is that with mods and games getting into '45 and '46 where radars can be plentiful that design decision is yielding results which model the lack of an integrated early warning system while players are seeing all the building blocks of such a warning system in existence in their TO&Es.

But it is hardly the biggest remaining gap in the model and is, at least partly, compensated for by leaky CAP from neighbouring bases which one can interpret as intercepts as the bombers overflew those bases if one so wishes.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 22
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 11:07:17 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25046
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JeffK,

Well all of that may be true but the reason raids don't get intercepted by bases they overfly is simply that that functionality doesn't exist in the code.



See my earlier comment on that. Long ago we were told it does and it's all rolled into the one combat sequence.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 23
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 11:16:31 PM   
Nemo121


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

If you actually test it by putting a base along the approach route 6 hexes from the base being bombed flying different fighters than at either the base being bombed or at the surrounding bases you'll have some interesting and faith-shattering findings then.

I set up a little test over the Home Islands where I had NATES at the base to be bombed, Ki-44s at the bases neighbouring the base to be bombed and A6M2s ( long-range so range wasn't a factor ) at bases from 5 to 10 hexes away from the base being bombed but DIRECTLY under the flight path of the bombers approaching the base to be bombed.

I ran the test numerous times and found Nates and Ki-44s intercepted but never found a single A6M2 show up in the combat reports.

I believe they account for planes in neighbouring bases but these tests lead me to believe they do NOT account for planes along the ingress route which are not adjacent to the base being bombed. All bases had Ta Chi 7 radar sets ( multiples ) so radar and single point malfunctions cannot explain the findings.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 12/10/2011 11:17:38 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 24
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 11:29:17 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25046
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
You overestimate my faith!

That's what tests are for. Now that you posted findings, Michael might look at it. It possible that the comment was wrong, or that my recall is wrong, or that the comment and my recall were both correct but that particular code is not working as intended.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 25
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/10/2011 11:34:33 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6352
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JeffK,

Well all of that may be true but the reason raids don't get intercepted by bases they overfly is simply that that functionality doesn't exist in the code.



I'm happy it doesnt exist in the code, IMHO it recreates the careful routing of raids.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 26
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/11/2011 1:14:59 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9503
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JeffK,

Well all of that may be true but the reason raids don't get intercepted by bases they overfly is simply that that functionality doesn't exist in the code.



I'm happy it doesnt exist in the code, IMHO it recreates the careful routing of raids.

Pretty sure this is WAD for the reason JeffK states. It is an abstraction, sure, like leaky CAP.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 27
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/11/2011 2:12:35 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JeffK,

Well all of that may be true but the reason raids don't get intercepted by bases they overfly is simply that that functionality doesn't exist in the code.



I'm happy it doesnt exist in the code, IMHO it recreates the careful routing of raids.

Pretty sure this is WAD for the reason JeffK states. It is an abstraction, sure, like leaky CAP.


In my mind this also explains the point to point calcualtions of KB vs. LBA like fighters. Rather than assemble multiple intercepts where circles of apollonius == true -- It looks like the game uses a simple intercept mode with straight lines ????

Let me further expalin .. if I have 400 fighters spread across 4 bases 100 each and ether the attack comes to a base in the middle .. it looks like only 100 fighters are available and the reverse is also true to calculate the 2.5 - 1 "I will sit at home and play bridge rather than escort an attack on the KB algorithum."

Its a lot of work for sure but the algorithum might be:

For (every base within maximum fighter range of the sighting) {
If check range(fighter, base)
If (circles of apollonius(fighter, target))
put into intercept que(fighter)
}

In this case the circles_of_apollonius() returns true or false given ranges and angles ...Intercept is possible ot not .. this algorithum is availible as code from Wolfram ..

One other thing that is abstracted .. a Zero might have 2300 fpm climb at 59F at ground level but I seriously doubt that above 18000 feet this rate of climb can be sustained. Also maximum rate of climb is not maximum angle of climb which is far slower airspeed and rate of climb. Even if by some miricle the zero's engine could sustain maximum power through the higher altitutes [please see my earlier posts about turbocharging] the high density-altitute affects cooling .. simply there is not enough air to cool the engine at full power .. then the density-altitude after about 18K feet really starts to affect lift/induced drag needed to keep the airplane flyin'. Bascally the same angle of attack at ground level cannot be maintained at high altitudes ..

Now here comes B-17's at 3.5 miles per minute ... at 40 miles in 11 minues the bombs will start falling ..now one could calcualte 2300 fpm [not realistic but let us fanitisize for a moment] and come up with about 10 minutes to altitude .. they get to altitude in this case at about 120 knts while the B-17's bomb and fly away ..

So with a more realistic intercept something more akin to about 80 miles would have been needed ..

Just a couple of thoughts ..

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 28
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/11/2011 2:19:44 PM   
Nemo121


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

If there was a limited number of intercepts you might be onto something but there are NO intercepts, EVER from overflown bases. So it isn't like leaky CAP, it simply isn't working.

It is way down my list of A2A model issues which need fixing in terms of importance but we shouldn't kid ourselves that it is partly modelled or not modelling it somehow replicates some mythical Japanese inability to spot bombers flying over a complex of airbases, radar sites, AAA sites etc on their way to a factory 40 miles west.

It is one thing to say you are routing around the AAA site so as not to take fire, its another thing to say you can't be seen by them.... but as I said, its small beans compared to some other aspects of the model.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 29
RE: Is radar working properly? - 12/12/2011 1:36:40 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9503
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

PaxMondo,

If there was a limited number of intercepts you might be onto something but there are NO intercepts, EVER from overflown bases. So it isn't like leaky CAP, it simply isn't working.

It is way down my list of A2A model issues which need fixing in terms of importance but we shouldn't kid ourselves that it is partly modelled or not modelling it somehow replicates some mythical Japanese inability to spot bombers flying over a complex of airbases, radar sites, AAA sites etc on their way to a factory 40 miles west.

It is one thing to say you are routing around the AAA site so as not to take fire, its another thing to say you can't be seen by them.... but as I said, its small beans compared to some other aspects of the model.

OK, so I'm saying they are able to fly around.

Radar in the 40's was very directional ... extrememly so compared to today. So, if they had it set up to detect raids incoming (normal setup), then anything flying by the side would never be seen by the radar there. It really was relatively easy to avoid this. It would of course compromise the range of the attackers, having to circumvent the interposing bases.

Having said that, yes, there should always be some small chance of interception. As you say, I've never seen one, nor heard of one from anyone else. Ergo, as you state, it could be something that is not working. Or, it could be as I state, WAD in that they have abstracted that narrow direction simply ignore the intercepts. Never heard a dev commment on it. And I agree with you, this is a very minor issue with minimal game playing issues.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Is radar working properly? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.186