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: Let me know if i understood...

 
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 >> RE: Let me know if i understood... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 11:55:36 AM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
As stated in your AAR, I think part of the problem with your latest tests could be cramming 200 fighters into one group. Split the group up into 4 groups of 50 P-47s and run the same few tests again.

Also, if you post your modified scenario, I'll try to run some of my own tests using the latest public patch as well.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 31
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 11:56:41 AM   
GreyJoy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.



Ok, i can, but it's not exactly a "real scenario"...if you only have 100 fighters possiblt due to CAp would you really put the CAP at that low altitude?? I mean...if you split the CAP between different altitudes (as i always do), i've been told (after my CVs debacle) that too many different altitudes screw the CAP...

mmm...and however i think it's a reasonable GAP between 15k and 6-8k feet... i mean from 15k feet you can easily dive over the incoming strike...


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 32
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:11:18 PM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.



Ok, i can, but it's not exactly a "real scenario"...if you only have 100 fighters possiblt due to CAp would you really put the CAP at that low altitude?? I mean...if you split the CAP between different altitudes (as i always do), i've been told (after my CVs debacle) that too many different altitudes screw the CAP...

mmm...and however i think it's a reasonable GAP between 15k and 6-8k feet... i mean from 15k feet you can easily dive over the incoming strike...




From a test point of view you should conduct it if you have time, would give more information and information always helps.

From a realistic point of view you are right. It is always "easy" to comment a combat after it has been done.

Basically altitude settings of the defender should only have a very very minor effect on the combat. There is more than enough time in a combat time frame to climb a 10000+ feet and more than enough time to drop to 100 feet from 35000. And there are radios to tell the pilots the height of the incoming strike so they can climb/drop on their way to interception point.


< Message edited by beppi -- 2/9/2012 12:12:42 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 33
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:13:29 PM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.



Ok, i can, but it's not exactly a "real scenario"...if you only have 100 fighters possiblt due to CAp would you really put the CAP at that low altitude?? I mean...if you split the CAP between different altitudes (as i always do), i've been told (after my CVs debacle) that too many different altitudes screw the CAP...

mmm...and however i think it's a reasonable GAP between 15k and 6-8k feet... i mean from 15k feet you can easily dive over the incoming strike...





You bet I would stagger them from up high down to low altitude, with emphasis on down low.

You are right that a dive from 15k to 6-8k should not be a problem, but were not talking realism in
this case, but game mechanics. And from game mechanics as soon as you have a gap too large you lose
much of its effectiveness.
If you got 100 fighters on CAP at max alt, you can sneak a whole truckload of B-24 in at 10k without them even
being engaged.

I agree with TheLoneGunman btw.
In case we want results which can be used for investigaton, we have to remain withing the limits
the campaign itself provides. So I rather doubt any result with an airgroup as large as 200 planes
leads to anything conclusive as nothing comparable exists in an unmodded scen.


_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 34
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:20:43 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Here u are... 4 groups of 50 planes each. Escort + 50% CAP, 0 range, 15k alt....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 01, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100


Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 11 destroyed, 31 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Colorado



Aircraft Attacking:
33 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes


And here are the same 4 groups at 6,000 feet (always escort mission with 50% CAP, 0 hex)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100


Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 22 destroyed, 5 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 8 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 15 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Chenango
BB Colorado
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 35
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:27:18 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
Biiiiiiiig difference at 6k feet!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 36
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:28:34 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7178
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I think it's totally different ballgame when both attackers & defenders are divided to squadron-size like in unmodded AE. Air Coordination problems for attacker will be way more severe and I think it'll benefit defending CAP.

I don't think game engine can really support air units with size of 100-200 or up.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 2/9/2012 12:30:41 PM >


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 37
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:33:29 PM   
LoBaron


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


With 2-3 layers you can probably further improve.
Not too far apart, just enough to box the escorts in.

_____________________________

Post #: 38
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:39:55 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
Now you gotta keep playing with it till you get the optimum defense package, then scale the whole experiment back up to 1000 aircraft and see how the results look then.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 39
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:47:56 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
As to the why the unassigned fighters do not scramble some time and do some other time question - it looks to me very much like a die roll is being made to check whether they are able to do that. Basically, sometimes you get lucky (or have good pilots/commanders/whatever) and your CAP gets increased, some other times hard luck.
Combat rounds cap in huge air battles is different problem though.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 40
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 12:56:02 PM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Here u are... 4 groups of 50 planes each. Escort + 50% CAP, 0 range, 15k alt....


Can you conduct the same test (CAP @ 15k and CAP @ 6k) but set the incoming strike to for example 25k.
And a last test with CAP@ 5k, 10k, 15k, 20k at strike coming in @12500 (Set it to 12500 to be exact in between the different CAP layers).

Until right now we know:

- CAP at same altitude maximum effect
- CAP to high reduced effect.

Question would be if CAP too low is better, worse or comparable to CAP to high.
And effect of layered CAP with 50% to low and 50% to high if it comparable to the same altitude, comparable to to high or comparable to to low.

p.s.: And yes there are a gazillion of different tests but as you do a systematic one it would be nice if you test all possible cases.


< Message edited by beppi -- 2/9/2012 12:57:58 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 41
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 1:02:43 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Absolutely agree.

Assuming I have four squadrons with 50 fighters each at a base, and I'm expecting a raid to come in at 10,000 ft, I set up my CAP as follows:

100 fighters at 8,000 ft
50 fighters at 10,000 ft
50 fighters at 12,000 ft

About 125 fighters then engage the bombers while the rest (about 75) engage the fighter escorts, who will be at 11,000 ft - and boxed in.

Works pretty well.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 42
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 1:29:25 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I see it in a similar way, in fact its exactly these results which should force the player to prefer dipersal.


Dispersal is only an acknowledgment that whatever the bombers go for is dead meat no matter what you do. The reason being that CAP size is... capped () while bomber strikes are not, a rather obviously uneven setup when the caps are reached.

Not only is it nonsense from a historical point of view, it's also not really a solution as you can only offer up sacrificial lambs to be killed so many times.

...And then theres the escorts as meatshields thing...

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 2/9/2012 1:32:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 43
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 1:33:08 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
It's heartening to see fighters at low altitude doing better though. What is the altitude of the attackers? Looks like they really can fly under CAP, at least as far as bomber strikes are concerned. Shame CAP can't also fly under sweeps...


< Message edited by EUBanana -- 2/9/2012 1:34:12 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 44
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 1:58:31 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Another test...same settings but slightly different altitudes...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     P1Y2 Frances x 50
     Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100


Japanese aircraft losses
     P1Y2 Frances: 25 destroyed, 7 damaged
     P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
     Ki-84r Frank: 16 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
     CVE Sangamon
     BB Colorado, Torpedo hits 1
     BB Valiant
     BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
     CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage



Aircraft Attacking:
     10 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
              Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 8000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 11000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 11000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
     4 planes vectored on to bombers
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 12000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes



Altidue is critical...agree. But 200 fighters is never enough against 50 fighters and 50 bombers...you cannot stop them.
 
Let's try again with always the same numbers on Japanese side and 400 fighters at 6,000 with 50% CAP....range 0
 

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 45
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:02:12 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
...and finally.... 400 fighters on 50% CAP, same altitude as bombers, 0 range....are able to stop the raid...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     P1Y2 Frances x 50
     Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
     P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 200
 

Japanese aircraft losses
     P1Y2 Frances: 29 destroyed, 3 damaged
     P1Y2 Frances: 2 destroyed by flak
     Ki-84r Frank: 9 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
     BB Colorado
     CVE Chenango



Aircraft Attacking:
      6 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
              Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
 
CAP engaged:
31st Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 67 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     33 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 42000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
     24 planes vectored on to bombers
31st Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 67 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     33 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 12000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
     36 planes vectored on to bombers
 



(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 46
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:04:34 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
Now scale up the attacker's numbers and continue to rinse and repeat until the game begins to "break" again.

But why are you changing the goal of the tests? Stopping the raid was never the issue, it was getting a chance to engage and shoot down the bombers that was the goal. You can't expect to stop every bombing attack, some of the bombers should be getting through, but not all of them. I thought that was the problem.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 47
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:05:59 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
So basically... to hope to stop a 50+50 strike you need to have 4x number of fighters on 50% CAP...and you have to guess the right altitude...which is, as we know, more or less impossible in RL games... You have to be able to counter sweeps, Dive bombers (from 10k to 14k), torpedo bombers (every alt), high alt kamikaze etc etc...so you need to have different altitudes among your CAP..

And please, note that we're talking about a very small attacking strike... in our games, we know, strikes are four, five or even six times bigger...

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 48
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:08:56 PM   
GreyJoy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Now scale up the attacker's numbers and continue to rinse and repeat until the game begins to "break" again.

But why are you changing the goal of the tests? Stopping the raid was never the issue, it was getting a chance to engage and shoot down the bombers that was the goal. You can't expect to stop every bombing attack, some of the bombers should be getting through, but not all of them. I thought that was the problem.


You're right. The scope is to find a way to have a chance. I not expressed well myselef... i was meaning that a raid of 50+50 against a very good CAP should be stopped...at least under certain degree...

tonight i'll do some more tests...

But the idea that to be effective you need to be at the same altitude as bombers is something that disturbs me... probably because i always thought "higher is better"...
Post #: 49
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:18:27 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
But the idea that to be effective you need to be at the same altitude as bombers is something that disturbs me... probably because i always thought "higher is better"...


In fighter vs fighter, which is what the Great Sweep Argument focused on, this is largely true. Real world fighter pilots even chimed in to say that higher is always better, even if higher is 30,000' higher.

I am actually greatly heartened to see that there is a reason to set altitude at a lower level for CAP. Bombers flying under CAP has been a bit of a legend I think but its good to see hard evidence that they really can.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 50
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:18:35 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Now scale up the attacker's numbers and continue to rinse and repeat until the game begins to "break" again.

But why are you changing the goal of the tests? Stopping the raid was never the issue, it was getting a chance to engage and shoot down the bombers that was the goal. You can't expect to stop every bombing attack, some of the bombers should be getting through, but not all of them. I thought that was the problem.


You're right. The scope is to find a way to have a chance. I not expressed well myselef... i was meaning that a raid of 50+50 against a very good CAP should be stopped...at least under certain degree...

tonight i'll do some more tests...

But the idea that to be effective you need to be at the same altitude as bombers is something that disturbs me... probably because i always thought "higher is better"...



A couple of thoughts.

In a real game your sole CAP is not going to be P-47s. What I would do is adust my CAP settings based upon the role of the aircraft I have available and where they perform best.

In "The War Room" you expressed your opinion on the lackluster performance of the J7W1 Shinden in a thread about that very aircraft. In that same thread it was pointed out that most aircraft excel at a particular role. Your dogfighters should be flying at altitudes that maximize their maneuver rating to keep them on par with the enemy's sweeps. Your interceptors should be operating at the altitude you expect enemy bombers to appear so that they can bring their guns to bear.

Chances are you're not going to stop 100% of the bombers, especially in a game like the one you and Rader have been playing.

What needs to be done is establishing roughly where the number of enemy escorts prevents attacking the enemy bombers from even happening.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 51
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:24:14 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 2759
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

You're right. The scope is to find a way to have a chance. I not expressed well myselef... i was meaning that a raid of 50+50 against a very good CAP should be stopped...at least under certain degree...

tonight i'll do some more tests...

But the idea that to be effective you need to be at the same altitude as bombers is something that disturbs me... probably because i always thought "higher is better"...


I wonder if experience has any bearing on the effectiveness of escorts? I would think that escorting bombers would require quire a bit of experience and discipline. Rookies would get out of position at the first sign of trouble. I mention this because in your game the IJA pilots probably have pretty low experience levels yet they stick like glue to the bombers

_____________________________

Art comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comfortable.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 52
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:24:24 PM   
witp1951


Posts: 118
Joined: 12/2/2009
From: Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Bombers flying under CAP has been a bit of a legend I think but its good to see hard evidence that they really can.


This has been my game experience. The early Allied torpedo bombers out of Singapore were flying under my CAP until I matched their altitude and massacred them.

_____________________________

Baka wa shinanakya naoranai

Dog

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 53
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:25:40 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
If the game was logic in any way or form, a raid of 50 betties + 50 50exp Franks against a CAP of 400 80exp P47 on 50% should get mauled, ie not necessarily kill them all, but kill a lot and above all massively disrupt the bombers so that only a minority manages to make a pass at the ships, and then only a minority can complete their pass against allied flak and only a minority of those hit.

On average we should see something like only 12-15 bombers being able to initiate their pass, with only 4-6 actually launching after facing the Flak and just a couple of hits. That's what I would expect with those numbers and experience gap.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 54
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 2:29:21 PM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

So basically... to hope to stop a 50+50 strike you need to have 4x number of fighters on 50% CAP...and you have to guess the right altitude...which is, as we know, more or less impossible in RL games... You have to be able to counter sweeps, Dive bombers (from 10k to 14k), torpedo bombers (every alt), high alt kamikaze etc etc...so you need to have different altitudes among your CAP..

And please, note that we're talking about a very small attacking strike... in our games, we know, strikes are four, five or even six times bigger...


Well, the main advantage of CAP layers is that you are able to cover multiple incoming alt bands.
Logic alone dictates that - depending on your opponents flexibility - you need a high cover against
sweeps, layers at medium altitude against the usual raids and to pull sweeps down low, and then some
CAP at 4 digit alts to stop low flying A/C.

If you leave your fighters at one alt band only, and the incoming alt varies, then you are in a position
of disadvantage compared to layered CAP as - as you mentioned - you might guess the wrong alt.

Do not forget that the problem exists for your opponent as well. He cannot use different alt bands if he wants
to coordinate his strikes, or he can chose to use seperate alt bands at the cost of coordination.

The air war in WitP has always been a cat and mouse game as long as experienced opponents play it.
You try to read you opponent and adapt, and on the other hand surprise him and not act according to
his expectations.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 55
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 3:01:17 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8992
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
GJ,

Not sure what you're looking for here.  Nice tests, pretty much as expected IMO.  You are largely stopping the raid with 2:1 ... "largely" means a few hits though.  It doesn't suggest no damage.

Let's start at the beginning and let's stay focused.  If you are looking to get historical results from any model, you need to first input historical data.  Your game is NOT historical.  Not close.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  So to start, you can't expect to anything close to historical results in your testing.

What is not historical?

Let's start with the IJ pilots.  The air groups are not the combination of low morale, desperate, burned out, experienced few pilots filled out with 18 yo kamikazes that pretty much defined end of war IJ air groups.  Instead you are facing well trained, high morale groups.  Ask any pilot how big a deal this is.  Huge.  And we know in the model this is also huge.  LoBaron, Damian, any of the air model experts will confirm this.

Second: air frames.  You are not facing the hordes of early war air frames that was historically the case.  The A6M2 is not in play, as it actually was.  Instead you are facing far better, although still not on par with allied, air frames.  Again, huge.  Instead of a +100 knot speed advantage, you have on average more like only 50 knots.  Still large, but far less than historical.  And the bombers instead of being Ronson's now have armor ... again, big change.

Quality: You are facing air craft from well supplied LAND BASES than there is any historical comparative.  The closest you have is the Phllipines, but the numbers were still smaller and the supply wasn't as good.  Meaning, some not insignificant numbers of the aircraft sortied those days with: not all armaments loaded or functioning, not fully functioning airframes ...  This aspect isn't modelled well in the game, but it is a large factor in your comparison to historical results.

Now go look at the actual combat records of the late war great air battles.  The allied fighter cover had 2:1 or better advantage in numbers in those fights.  If you expectation isn't at least that, it needs to be reset.  Now, take that 2:1 and modify it further for the above 3 factors.  How high do you need to be?  Pure speculation of course, but way above 2:1 is pretty safe.

Now, go back and read up on the planning for the invasion of Japan.  The projected losses were horrific.  The 1945 analysis was that they could NOT completely defend the fleet against an all out attack, there were going to be substantial losses, and only ONE chance to make a landing.  Far higher risk than Normandy.  This is what compelled Truman to use the nuke(s).  Agree or not with the analyses, but that is what they were. 

I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem with very large air combats.  Of course there is.  My testing last year proved it to me.  When I raised the issue, I got no response.  So then I did some searching and found out why.  There are several threads (search back a couple years ago when they were trying to fix the uber-CAP) with the devs well knowing this issue and working to mitigate it.  The thread's don't have all the conclusions as to what was actually done, but pretty clear that it was known and being worked on.  JWE has shared his HR's in rader's AAR to further mitigate this, which by now you also have.

So what's the bottom line here?  The good news is that as a PBEM player, you actually can install HR's to mitigate this somewhat.  It might very well take 4:1 fighter or higher CAP to provide "air tight" results, but you can get there.  At 2:1, you get some losses, but knowing this you can mitigate the effects nicely.  All of this cuts both ways: it is not one sided at all.  IJ faces exactly the same challenges, so this is not a game balance issue.


Me?  I'm an AI player, there aren't any HR's, and I haven't quite figured this one out yet.  I already know from my Downfall testing the AI is going to send in 100's of B-29's at 6000 ft at night as soon as it has the opportunity.  I know, and you do too, that there is no CAP / AA defense against this.  They will destroy all industry at the targetted base in 2 - 4 turns and then move onto the next base.  My only defense is to never allow that to happen ... ok, a good challenge. 

PS: If you want to do a "historical" test, change the IJ units to A6M2 with Betty's.  Set the pilot exp to about 40, morale to about 40, move in a good leader and 2 - 3 high exp pilots into each group and let it go.  See your results then.  Bet you get quite close to historical results with air combat of less than 200 total a/c (i.e. complete destruction of the IJ units and maybe 2 - 3 kami hits)

Just my thoughts ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 56
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 3:43:12 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Brilliant post, PaxMondo.

Let's look at the Battle of the Philippine Sea - the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on 19 June 1944.

The first Japanese raid consisted of only 69 Zeroes, Judies and Graces - some of them flown by very green pilots.

Over 200 F6F-3 Hellcats with experienced naval pilots met this raid more than 50 miles out from TF58. Only 27 Japanese planes got through that first screen; a second fighter screen destroyed a further 16 Japanese planes. The remaining eleven Japanese aircraft attacked two US picket destroyers and some Judies managed to get through to the battleship line and landed a bomb hit on the South Dakota.

The second raid was 119 Japanese aircraft. They were also engaged more than 50m out by over 200 Hellcats. Despite being outnumbered and the distance from the US ships, twenty planes still managed to break through all the way to the carriers but were then decimated by AAA. Four Judies tried to bomb USS Wasp but she managed to elude them.

So we see that in June 1944, with poor quality Japanese pilots, facing an extremely well-layered and directed CAP with superior airframes, you still had about 15% of the Japanese attackers getting through to attempt a target run (and then being ineffectual and decimated by AAA).

I really don't think it's implausible then if the game engine has 50 Frances and 50 Franks being countered by 200 P-47s and 12% of the Frances bombers manage to get through for a target run.

I have said often that I think the air model in this game works very well (except for massive non-historical size raids over 300 or so aircraft) but that a concern in the stock scenarios is how ineffectual Allied ship AA is. Da Big Babes goes a long way towards addressing this.





(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 57
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 3:45:55 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
I really don't think it's implausible then if the game engine has 50 Frances and 50 Franks being countered by 200 P-47s and 12% of the Frances bombers manage to get through for a target run.


Unfortunately the problem is when you have 100% of the strike package making it through the CAP, which often happens when the bomber strikes are bigger and have enough escorts.

The CAP does not have enough hardcoded passes to do any more than saw at the escort, so you see the meatshields get shot down while the bombers are totally untouched.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 2/9/2012 3:47:17 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 58
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 3:51:53 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Understood, which is why I've proposed that coordination penalties above a certain raid size should be seriously ramped up to avoid non-historical raid sizes.

Carrier-launched strikes already have their chances of uncoordination doubled if the TF has more aircraft than 200 + RND(200). You could do the same with land-based strikes!

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 59
RE: Let me know if i understood... - 2/9/2012 4:07:41 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Understood, which is why I've proposed that coordination penalties above a certain raid size should be seriously ramped up to avoid non-historical raid sizes.

Carrier-launched strikes already have their chances of uncoordination doubled if the TF has more aircraft than 200 + RND(200). You could do the same with land-based strikes!



Indeed.

Though its a bit more than that... if you have lots of separate carrier TFs you might see a 1000 plane strike. Different bases or TFs can coordinate with one another.

If the CAP has a hardcoded limit it seems only fair to me that the bombers also have a hardcoded limit. However thats me from my armchair, god knows what the code actually looks like. Maybe one day the source will be released...

_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Let me know if i understood... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.188