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: State of the Air War in AE

 
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: State of the Air War in AE Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 7:29:40 AM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ?


A very useful tool to blank out contributors with a too big discrepancy between content and posting frequency, mylady.
I reccommend.

Welcome back! So when are you allowed to get your cruiser back? Don´t say you fell in love with a CM.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 181
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 7:47:19 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


I will, thanks. I was referring to the reports anyway, did not find any charts up to now. But there I always allow for bias. I am lurking
the IL-2 forums for more than 10 years now and there the battles of words over different climb rates are epic.
Won´t participate though. One discussion platform with one or the other irrational individuum is enough.

You are correct on the even shorter burst lenghts btw, I allowed for inexperienced pray and spray guys to flow into statistics, but
probably overdid.

Did you try Cliffs of Dover btw? As a long time vet of IL-2 as well, I bought it and shelved it for lack of content. FM and graphics are
superb, or at least have the potential to be superb after patch 153, and the model detail is the best I have ever seen.
Still it has nothing to do with a complete simulator yet. Also, I am still hoping for a decent AI as I am an offline player.

The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true. It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with
the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.


Sry for OT.

I have the CloD but I'm probably the only one in the world with an awesome bug of the game minimizing itself to desktop every 20min. So no CLOD to me even if it otherwise runs well and smooth all settings maxed.

The latest 4.11 update to Il-2 includes a redone AI. Much better. But online is still where the real fun, action and challenge is. Most people use the hyperlobby but myself I've lately played mostly on various east european servers. Playerbase there is very adult, even more so than in the HL(where I'm one of the admins).

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 182
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 10:30:27 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1215
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true.


The word about the CoD quality spread so quickly that after a short while I didn't even bother checking patching progress anymore. Instead I finally bought the IL-2 compilation, much cheaper and, as far as people wrote, way better in many aspects. But due to WitP, ARMA, lately WiTE, and the bugger called real life I have not even yet installed it, and that is after a few years? Still looking forward to buying a new flightstick set and playing it, I had been an avid flight sim fan in earlier years (various Jane's products AH64 Longbow, Falcon, and a lot earlier stuff starting with original Gunship on C64!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.


Do I read that right that the flight model for jets in IL-2 is a bit goofy? In what respects?

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 183
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 10:45:26 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Nik has interesting solution to some aspects of massive air combats in his modded scenario, dramatically increasing the service ratings of planes. Very rarely in Pacific an air unit had more than 70% of it's planes fully functional same time. This would cut down the numbers somewhat..and with stacking limits, would make truly massive air raids more difficult to achieve.

I whole heartedly agree. In fact I have thought the same thing for quite a while. If I could snap my fingers I would increase ALL a/c by 1 in Service Rating. in fact the felxibility of doing just that was the whole reason I came up with the Service Rating in the first place. It was a simple variable that affected the sortie rate of a an A/C and it could be applied across the board or individually.


I`m sorry to arrive late here, but doubling all the landbased Service Rating and tripling all the CV- based service rating for all planes would make wonders in way of improving air ops pace to this game.

Instead of doing a "max effort" everyday, you would need days, if not weeks between each max efforts


< Message edited by Bliztk -- 3/12/2012 10:46:40 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 184
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 10:54:30 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
janh, putting my response to your post in a new thread to avoid cluttering this very useful discussion.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3059071&mpage=1&key=�

_____________________________


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 185
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 10:57:31 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

_____________________________


(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 186
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 11:09:22 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline
Yeah, but you mitigate the CV Death star, because if you spend 5 days of strikes with CAP, then your capabilities will degrade.

It would encourage the more historical operations, of two days max effort, two-three rest. Or our archfamous 20-CV force rotating its carriers in thirds 1/3 attack, 1/3 cover 1/3 rest.

For example

http://173.192.121.142/images/Users/1/PBL/System%20Level/The%20Department%20of%20Defense%20Awards%20Program%20for%20Excellence%20in%20Performance%20Based%20Logistics%202007%20-%20F%20A-18%20FIRST.pdf

F-A/18 Hornet got 57% avaliability rate in 2000 and the top got 73% in 2007.



< Message edited by Bliztk -- 3/12/2012 11:15:59 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 187
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 3:20:08 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25767
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...


I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 3/12/2012 3:21:12 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 188
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 6:28:33 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13823
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...


I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?



when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/12/2012 6:30:05 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 189
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 6:56:12 PM   
LoBaron


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

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...


I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?



when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.


Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?



_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 190
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 7:11:03 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9521
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...


I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?



when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.


Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?




That sounds like a good idea...I think some sort of check for available AV support before attack missions should be there. We don't even know if there is one but is not working...also a possibility, since in past there has been several things not working as designed.

_____________________________

"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 #: 191
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 7:46:14 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25767
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...


I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?



when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.


Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?


It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 192
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 7:52:54 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1169
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


Alfred,
I always respect your knowledge and perspective; however, are you truly saying that the current CAP vs Escort model works well enough that most players with at least a general eye towards history will not see very unusual results as the endgame approaches?

mike


My overall position is as follows.

1. Gary Grigsby game designs are always very dependent on die rolls. It is therefore practically guaranteed that any game design of his will experience some very odd outcomes. Players either accept these odd outcomes and tailor their play accordingly or they should not bother playing any of his games.

2. Personally I have no problems with odd outcomes. War is a very messy business and many events which are unforeseen and beyond the participants control occur. IRL, wargaming particular scenarios in advance do not fully predict what will subsequently occur when the actual operation is mounted.

3. This game is very abstracted, it is not a simulation. Within the abstracted game design parameters, the air combat model is close enough to be good enough. To make the air combat model more "realistic" for those who find it to be quite unsatisfactory, many things would have to be un-abstracted. Things such as (there are many more):


  • introduction of avgas into the game
  • breakdown of supplies into the various different ordnance carried by different aircraft models
  • abandonment of the game's point to point air combat with area combat as per the naval combat side


These are things which simply cannot be accommodated within the current legacy code.

4. This game is not a tactical representation of the PTO. Invariably when people complain about an aspect of the game (not just the air combat model) their suggested fix is always to introduce more tactical and micromanagement elements into the game. That is fundamentally a dead end for these reasons:


  • it harms future sales of the game. There is no one who decides to not buy the game because it is not detailed enough but there are potential purchasers who do not buy the game precisely because it is already too detailed with too much micromanagement
  • adding more tactical elements is more likely to reduce the playability of the game rather than enhance its playability. The existing 50 or so regular posters who might relish the additional tactical details and who are very vocal advocates of playing only PBEMs, are not representative of the much broader and generally silent customer base
  • coding and grafting additional tactical elements onto quite old legacy code is a complex task. Solutions which might cater to the small but extremely vocal PBEM crowd are not necessarily valid for the AI crowd and therefore much thought and play testing is always required. More importantly there is no one around to do the work


5. Complaints invariably arise when a player experiences an outcome which is contrary to their expectations. These expectations are preconceived and are usually based on wrong premises and errors in knowledge or understanding. Rather than examining whether their expectation was valid they immediately jump to the conclusion that because their own expectation and play simply could not be the problem, the game itself must be at fault. Because they fail to properly self analyse their own play decisions, these players fail to notice what can be done to avoid the failures they experience.

6. The code requires arbitrary limits to be incorporated. That is how any software operates. Players who are determined to "game" the code, or at least explore its outer limits will always find a way to highlight code issues. No solution will ever remove this behaviour and it always carries within it the seeds of creating greater unintended problems elsewhere.

As I said above, taking into account the overall picture, the air combat module is close enough to be good enough. Assemble a new AE development team, give them the necessary resources and time to do the job, and then we can start to consider real changes to the air combat module. Until then skillful play is the order of the day. And accept that Grigsby die roll outcomes are a fact of life.

Alfred

Edit:fixed spelling and "grammar" in point 4

Thanks Alfred. Cogent as always. Mike

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 193
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 8:37:21 PM   
LoBaron


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.


Not really. It is currently only a percentual relation, and not an absolute one.

Theres a difference between penalizing an overstack by reducing the percentage of sorties to 75 or 50% of total planes or make
it limited by AV on an absolute basis.

In the first situation I can launch an attack from an airfield with 60AV and 5000 a/c and get 50% flying one strike (2500), in the second situation
I get 60 (or 120 if you want to double AV) planes for a strike, no matter what.

It would:
- lower number of offense sorties flown
- limit strike size if AV is dispersed as strategically advisable
- force a wider dispersion because it is easier to relocate planes than base forces

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/12/2012 8:50:43 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 194
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 8:51:54 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1215
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.


Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support? Would this be possible?


It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.


For a minute I was sure you were right, I could have sworn that I read in the manual a while back. But I can't find it now. Either I am confused, or I read here on the forum a long time ago. Well, some will know better. As far as I see, besides the effects linked to airfield levels, there are the limitations due to supply points at the base (p. 252), an experience, a leadership, a morale test and a HQ test that all affect missions immediately, i.e. prior to execution. No AV there, but in the reductions due to maintenance and repair for the next turn.

Besides, it seems to me that high op-tempo and the strike resolution are two different, not directly linked issues. Reducing participating or ready planes due to increasing the AV needs will probably reduce the symptoms somewhat, since LBAstrikes will become smaller. And it is also a good thing to reduce op-tempo.
But I would bet the symptoms will still be evident in 1945 games, with 100s of 4EB and escorts participating. Allies and Japs have tons of base forces with sufficient AV in stock, and they add up linearly, i.e. don't convergence/reach any limit that can effectively work at a base (or is there a built in limit such as with the passes?).
Also, how would AV affect (pure) CV clashes? Seems players are commonly more conservative in AE when it comes to CVs, and hence large CV clashes with "CV death stars", be it spread out on a few hexes or concentrated, will always be quite common? Seems to me like curing the AV symptoms won't help much in the latter two examples?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 195
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 9:02:56 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
It will not solve a GreyJoy vs. rader situation, but it does not intend to. In their PBEM they have so much AV support
amassed in one corner of the map that it lacks on other places.

But in normal distributed games it will prevent the immediate relocation of massive air forces and later reacting with AV
if needed. So your reaction time decreases and this again favours dispersion.

As far as carriers are concerned you could limit strike size on land targets to half the capacity for example, and leave the naval
strike size as is. Or limit naval strike sizes as well, interesting question.

_____________________________


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 196
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 10:03:08 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25767
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.


Not really. It is currently only a percentual relation, and not an absolute one.

Theres a difference between penalizing an overstack by reducing the percentage of sorties to 75 or 50% of total planes or make
it limited by AV on an absolute basis.

In the first situation I can launch an attack from an airfield with 60AV and 5000 a/c and get 50% flying one strike (2500), in the second situation
I get 60 (or 120 if you want to double AV) planes for a strike, no matter what.

It would:
- lower number of offense sorties flown
- limit strike size if AV is dispersed as strategically advisable
- force a wider dispersion because it is easier to relocate planes than base forces


A percentage reduction is certainly a real reduction. There still might be better ways to do it, but one point to keep in mind is that the developers have not told us how exactly they do it at this time.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 197
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 10:06:07 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25767
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I partly take that back, provided the manual is up to date. Page 214:

quote:

If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are
reduced by 25%

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 198
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/12/2012 11:53:33 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Let us not ask how the results of 1000 plane japanese raids should be..


...let us ask instead when in history did japan ever launch a 1000 plane raid..




.. and where did they find the aluminum to build the numbers of AC we can in AE..

I would say by the end of the game, japan should have ships but no planes to put onto them
they can have tanks..or anything made of steel... but japan could only make about 120 kilotones of aluminum per year


the air model is excellent (thank you whoever fixed it since WITP, WITP was broken, AE is good)

please fix the production model too (and it is easy to do... 50 HI points for ships per 1 HI point for planes)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 199
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 1:22:52 AM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
That's most of an evening spent reading this thread from the beginning. .

Plenty of good ideas and input from the community here, with a few OT ones as per usual.

Thanks to The Elf for being brave enough to start this thread.

I really like the idea of limiting bomber numbers to AV support levels. The fly in and shoot 75% of them is silly.
Thanks CT for raising this as an idea +1 from me on this.

Whether its bombers <= AV support or x2 (or whatever factor is dreamt up) its a good idea imo.



_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 200
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 2:02:18 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


Let us not ask how the results of 1000 plane japanese raids should be..


...let us ask instead when in history did japan ever launch a 1000 plane raid..




.. and where did they find the aluminum to build the numbers of AC we can in AE..

I would say by the end of the game, japan should have ships but no planes to put onto them
they can have tanks..or anything made of steel... but japan could only make about 120 kilotones of aluminum per year


the air model is excellent (thank you whoever fixed it since WITP, WITP was broken, AE is good)

please fix the production model too (and it is easy to do... 50 HI points for ships per 1 HI point for planes)



...but, in this game Japan can...and did in GJ and Rader's game... When you dont shut off Japans resources, as GreyJoy didnt...you will have these mega battles...thus, they need to be considered as well.

< Message edited by jeffk3510 -- 3/13/2012 2:03:13 AM >


_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 201
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 2:10:34 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

AE --> AC are cheap

IRL --> AC are expensive

in terms of types of materials at least..

.. trainers can be built of wood and steel but not zeroes

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 202
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 2:43:56 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


AE --> AC are cheap

IRL --> AC are expensive

in terms of types of materials at least..

.. trainers can be built of wood and steel but not zeroes

Me-262 and Mosquito, Ki-106 and Lagg-3.
Almost any WW2 a/c can have steel/wooden replica.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 203
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 3:33:11 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

no.. steel/wood will cause major drop on performance

combine steel/wood with poor low-octane fuel and jap planes would be total junk

that's why they never used it in a first line plane..


nice to be USAAF, huge amounts of duralumin and high octane fuel

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 204
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 5:34:03 AM   
PaxMondo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

...but, in this game Japan can...and did in GJ and Rader's game... When you dont shut off Japans resources, as GreyJoy didnt...you will have these mega battles...thus, they need to be considered as well.

Actually, I think any game if the allies come in close to the HI. Any IJ player is going to hundreds, if not a couple thousand kami's ready, almost independent of their expansion. But, yes, in rader's case with his HUGE expansion, he is in a position to put up many thousands of aircraft that historically did not happen. That is the point of the game though ... what if ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 205
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 7:49:16 AM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 416
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: online
So.....lets set max stacking at a level 9 airfield of 450 aircraft which you need 450 AV to support. Try and mass 1000 plane co-ordinated raids with that restriction.
Regards
Andrew
edit Ooops... just realised I missed a bunch of posts so this post is a bit out of place. Apologies.

< Message edited by aoffen -- 3/13/2012 10:57:27 AM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 206
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 8:08:15 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13823
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...


I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?



when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.


Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?


It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.


it isn't (unfortunately). Ok, it may be reduced, but the reduction is so low you don't notice if you want to fly those two thousand aircraft strike. There should be nearly NO aircraft flying without aviation support. At least this is what I am thinking about it, because who really is fueling and arming all those thousands of aircraft? The crews?

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/13/2012 8:12:46 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 207
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 10:00:49 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
In fact there is an even easier solution than what I proposed on castor troy´s findings in post #194, if that one is too complex:

Simply reduce sortie percentage to a very low number if AV support is insufficient, to 5-10% of total a/c for example (instead of 75% as witpqs noted).

The issue I see here is theres a danger if you supercede AV by just a single plane, you get the penalty, and this is undesired. Hm. This would
mean 5000 plane stack results in 250 plane strike if AV is superceded.

You could also implement a soft limit:
0 - 10% overstack: 75% of sorties
10 - 50% overstack: 40% of sorties
> 50%: 10% of sorties

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 208
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 1:13:56 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
Been away for awhile...

In regards to the AV restrictions being bandied about...much like the Genie in the bottle be careful in what you wish for and try to think of all the implications before asking.

My first question would be - what impact would the restrictions have on the Japanese expansion in the 1st six months of the game? This period is crucial to an enjoyable and interesting mid- and end-game.

I like LoBaron's graduated penalty...however perhaps a refinement and tweaking of the repair and readying of returning aircraft would also be in order. Such that as a player attempts to conduct extended operations from a base with insufficient aircraft fewer and fewer planes are restored to a state of readiness for follow-up ops and remain "damaged".

Not sure of the damage routines but if I were king for a day in addition to the current routines ... all aircraft would accumulate a variable amount of damage dependent on range to target and # of engines and weather of 1-4 points on a 10 point scale at the conclusion of an air mission, irregardless of other accumulated damage...this damage would represent simple wear and tear. At the end of the mission 1 point of AV could restore 3 points of damage to the aircraft with the expenditure of supply. Any aircraft with 1 or more points of damage would not fly.

As such a single engine aircraft flying say 1-2 hexes in the AM in rain would accumulate 1 pt for range, 1 pt for engine, 1 pt for weather...3 pts of damage. It returns to base if the base has sufficient AV the 3 pts of damage are restored assuming sufficient supply is available and the aircraft is returned to readiness.

A twin engine aircraft flying say 10 hexes in clear would accumulate say 3 pts for range and 2 pts for engine and 0 for weather...5 pts total. If AV is present 3 points restored, aircraft would still have 1 point of damage and would be unavailable for PM strikes.

Remember this "damage" is in addition to damage received in A2A and from AAA. So our twin engine aircraft from above gets shot up during the raid, delivers its cargo and ends up ditching on return because of the wear and tear damage added at the end of mission would exceed allowable damage.

So in the case of the 2000 plane raid I would allow them to fly the initial raid...however upon return the 250 AV would only be able to repair 250... leaving 1750 on the ground damaged.


Anyhow... my 2 cents from the peanut gallery...you may resume your normal programming.




_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 209
RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 1:29:46 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13823
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
which wouldn't solve the problem of the 2000 aircraft strike in a day though and we are at start again. All that is needed is that single day. Reducing the total number of aircraft striking in a single day should be the goal IMO. Or limiting the size of the strikes.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/13/2012 1:30:06 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: State of the Air War in AE Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.414