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: Is those supposed to happen?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Is those supposed to happen? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 2:50:32 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5544
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Hex 86,109 is not a base hex.

Not a good advertisement for your "tests" but consistent with the overall reliability of your approach.

Alfred

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 61
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 4:52:16 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8264
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hex 86,109 is not a base hex.

Not a good advertisement for your "tests" but consistent with the overall reliability of your approach.

Alfred


Uhm, as far as I know the rule applies to the position of the CVs and not the hex they are attacking?

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/25/2014 5:54:41 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 62
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 4:58:35 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5544
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 63
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:15:52 AM   
obvert


Posts: 12836
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred


In all posts showing an IJ strike on the Allied CVs the Allies are positioned at 80, 110. The IJN are apparently at 86, 109.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3555633






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 64
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 6:38:45 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5544
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred


In all posts showing an IJ strike on the Allied CVs the Allies are positioned at 80, 110. The IJN are apparently at 86, 109.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3555633







Thank you.

I pay attention to detail. Wish a lot more of the people who post would do likewise.

1. How des one know the Allied strike came from a base hex, or quite specifically here from 80,110. Answer: one DOES NOT. Where has the OP, in the edited CR he posted at the bottom of page 2 state where the strike came from.

2. Now let's look at what evidence there is to support the assumption re hex 80,110. Answer: NOTHING. Every time the hex 80,110 has been displayed it is showing a Japanese strike on Allied ships. The strike is met by over 1500 Corsairs plus many Hellcats. Yet not a single Corsair escorted the Allied Helldivers and Avengers. Why would that be? I can speculate but it all just reinforces the quality of this vanity testing. What it unequivocally demonstrates is that like with like is not involved and therefore one cannot just make that assumption.

3. Other than the edited CR given at the bottom of page 2, the only other CR which discloses an Allied strike is found in post #49. That strike hit the Japanese near Lautem, which is a fair distance from 80,110. Note the composition of the Allied strike packages on both occasions; they are quite similar. If we are going to just go on assumptions then if I were to make an assumption that it is Lautem positioning which is location, I would have more basis for that assumption than the hex 80,110 assumption. But I do not make the assumption, merely pointing out the lack of full disclosure, again.

4. Unrelated to the assumptions, here is a quote which fully demonstrates the lack of attention/sloppyiness of the OP.

I'm asking the questions why CAP don't intercept bombers when there are a large number of planes.


This quote was made in post #49. Immediately afterwards, in the same post, he puts up the CR which disclosed 7 Peggy and 107 Grace shot down (there were some other bombers brought down by flack). I ask, how can any one take seriously the quality of this vanity testing when such a silly and false statement is made.

5. Let's return to the edited CR at the bottom of page 2. The claim is that all the Allied aircraft flew. Well that isn't really true. Accepting for the sake of the argument, the assumption that the Allied strike emanated from the same hex which has been previously targeted by the Japanese how does one explain the lack of escorting Corsairs? Well here are a couple of further assumptions which would need to be made.

(a) the Corsairs remained on 90% CAP, but that would still leave 10% available for Escort or Training or (you choose profile). Which one is it, if escort then there should have been some Corsairs in the strike package. In any case, assuming (there again another assumption we are being asked to make) it is the same hex which contains 95% of the Allied combat fleet it isn't really true that all aircraft (aka the subset of all fighters) flew because they were on purpose made to not fly escort

(b) another assumption is that the Corsairs remained on 0 range and therefore could not fly out to the adjacent hex. But again that requires another assumption to be made by us viz the OP has stated that he runs his CAP at 0 range so how come any Hellcats at all were available to escort the bombers? Did he, just for this one test, remove the Hellcats from the CAP duty which they have performed in the various CRs provided?

6. But in a sense, the issues covered in the preceding point are moot for we have no idea from which carriers the Allied strike package flew. In fact, based on the number of aircraft involved in the various CRs, it would be a reasonable assumption that only planes located on Allied CVEs flew. The OP claims to be an experienced player; he has often posted claiming that something is wrong in AE. He would therefore know, if he pays any attention to details and what is spelled out in s.7.2.1.13.2 of the manual and in innumerable threads (including a recent one), that there is no flight penalty attached to CVEs in base hexes.



There are several things I could say to explain what has happened, but I don't jump in anymore when a thread is opened and the respondents are expected to guess. Certainly not when the same issue has been canvassed in many previous threads. If it is a rare issue and one where newbies may benefit I may jump in and guess. But not here.

Far too many around here go off and just set up "tests" which prove nothing. They have an unjustified inflated view of the value of their "tests". People who actually do debug software know just how much effort and time is required to run valid tests. And they have access to the code, without which it is almost impossible to set up properly structured tests which can provide definitive and reliable results. Look at posts from LoBaron and Symon regarding what is involved in properly testing software. Not many of the forumites follow those standards. Worse still, they are selective in the results they post. Rarely do they disclose the full test parameters and the changes to variables made. This thread is an excellent exemplar of such vanity testing.

Alfred

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 65
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 7:09:56 AM   
LoBaron


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

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred


In all posts showing an IJ strike on the Allied CVs the Allies are positioned at 80, 110. The IJN are apparently at 86, 109.


obvert, I fully agree with Alfred on this.

Lets just look at his latest post where hades1001 seems to attempt to show the missing base hex penalty for CV strikes for example:

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

For those who says strike wave will be reduced because carriers are in base hex:

All my escorts and bombers went out during multiple tests. I don't think the manual is accurate here unless there are other factors I don't know.

Please correct me.

Here is one example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Biak at 86,109

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A7M2 Sam x 598
N1K5-J George x 42
Ki-84r Frank x 26

Allied aircraft
F6F-5 Hellcat x 470
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 62
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 296
TBM-1C Avenger x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
A7M2 Sam: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-5 Hellcat: 27 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 18 destroyed, 8 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 65 destroyed, 54 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 2 destroyed by flak
TBM-1C Avenger: 5 destroyed, 11 damaged
TBM-1C Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak





Ok, what information have we got:

An IJN TF of unknown composition, located in hex 86,109, protected by significant CAP, was attacked by the above listed planes. We have the probable incoming altitude, the detection range, the time to target, and the estimated loss figures in planes.

Thats it.

Lets look at what we can only wild-guess from this post, wild-guess from other posts, or don´t know at all:

- We don´t know the hex from where the strike originated (it could be any random snipped of CR pulled from anywhere)
- We have no idea about the Allied TF composition and the number of flight decks possibly affected by the penalty (so no idea about CV/CVL numbers)
- We have no information whatsoever on CVEs in the same hex that might or might not have supported this strike.
- We don´t know anything about the squadron composition on those flight decks.
- We have no information on mission settings of the Allied squadrons.
- We completely lack data on other missions flown from those flight decks.

And this is just a short list of unknowns I summed up after a short glance on his quoted post, the complete list of unknowns would be much longer.


For somebody in search for qualified answers, and for somebody claiming to post evidence about game behaviour, hades1001´s posts severely lack information to achieve exactly that. Any conclusions based on his posts would be pure speculation without anything to back it up. Any attempt at serious explanation would be highly dubious at best.

To be honest, I am pretty sure hades1001 is aware of this, as he has been reminded of the lack of data he provides in this discussion several times already. Whether he is unable or unwilling to provide, I don´t know or care. Fact is, he does not.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/25/2014 8:14:27 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 66
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 8:30:58 AM   
obvert


Posts: 12836
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
Agree on the points above. Just wanted to be brief as there is no point, as you both say, in dealing with much of this until or unless the OP is interested in really providing the kind of detail necessary. I also wonder why his supposed PBEM partner has not made an appearance here to help clarify something from his side?

I was more concerned with his post about CAP performance than the strikes, and the CAP should be affected by the base hex location as shown in strikes toward the Allied fleet in all CRs.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 67
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 10:24:37 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Popping up here just to say that I find pretty reasonable the results shown in the first post. That isn't a disaster...not at all. The CVEs are dead meat, no matter what you do, against the KB...and the Allied CVs are more or less untouched.
I'd say that it's not correct to assume that a strike of 500 of the best TB in the game, escorted by probably the best carrier fighter, shouldn't penetrate the CAP screen.
Also, consider that luck and weather has always a big role in CV-CV engagements... so the result cannot be assured...

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 68
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 11:22:13 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12387
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Here is the full combat report, I'm not sure what you are looking for though.

Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 22000.


For example for the fact that your CAP patrol alt was about 10k above the incoming naval strike and at the same time had to engage LBA attack which arrived significantly higher. That explains a lot. Besides what has been mentioned already this is a major factor.

CR alone still does not tell everything, but this is enough to answer your initial question. Yes, in this situation your loss figures seem quite plausable.




and having 40 squadrons at 40 different, perfect altitudes wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome. I'm sorry that after all the years I have still to disagree, but you put too much real world fantasy into
it. Go and TEST it, please. 15000ft or 20000ft works just fine to engage these strikes, especially with the insane number of fighters. Like many other things one is "supposed" to do, there is not much truth in it.
I've put dozens of hours into it to confirm or deny these theories while there are enough ppl around not even making it to late years and all they do is playing around with 3-400 aircraft max.

There is only one truth again, the code can't handle these numbers, NO MATTER what you try to do. Those are nothing but myths. Go TEST it, just once. Then come back.



It actually WOULD have exulted in a different outcome. Altitude of CAP does matter, though it won't STOP these strikes, only reduce their effectiveness.

Late war Japanese strike planes are very fast, and if some of the CAP is taking almost an hour to get into position to intercept, then it's likely some will get through.


quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

So in this situation how can I better defend myself?


The distance the CAP is set to will also matter. Is there any Allied CAP over the hex the fleet are in exclusively or are they all set to strike distance?

What is the TF composition for these CVE TFs? Any BBs, CLAAs, other heavy AA platforms there?

A base hex will certainly limit your CAP a LOT, and you still haven't bothered to mention your actual CAP percentage setting. You want help but don't seem to be willing to reveal much, so do you really want to figure it out?



yeah, one hour pre warning time 2000 fighters on Cap and you think you would do different having them at different altitudes. Have fun failing, not much more I can say...

the op had his fighters at 20000ft, the strikes were at 10000ft. Just FINE! He didn't have them at 1000ft or 40000ft and even then, IF YOU WOULD HAVE EVER PUT SOME WORK INTO TESTING IT, you would find out that even
that wouldn't make any NOTABLE difference. OMG anybody of you experts realised the ridicoulosly high numbers involved? Your woodoo won't help here! There is just one thing that would make ANY difference, and that
is WEATHER! Make the strike attacking these ships in Thunderstorms instead of Light cloud or clear and you will see a DIFFERENCE. Your woodoo settings won't make any difference, the numbers are just too insane.

If you guys, after all these years, are not getting over the fact that the code just can't handle these absurd numbers, then I pity you all. And no, this is no critics on the code, this is critics to all those
that still don't get it. It's not some magic fantasy settings that you guys pull out of thin air it's just the code that is not supposed to handle 1 million of soldiers fighting each other on an atoll nor 5000
aircraft colliding in the air over the whole IJN/USN/RN stacked into one hex.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/25/2014 12:32:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 69
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 1:21:42 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Hex 86,109 is where KB is. Not a base hex.

But the strike was launched from Boela, which is a base hex.

Where strike wave should be reduced to 50% of normal size according to the manual.

As you mentioned for more proof, sometimes I was using cellphone to post and can't take screenshots.

If you don't believe my tests, maybe try to run one yourself.If you have already done so, please share with us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hex 86,109 is not a base hex.

Not a good advertisement for your "tests" but consistent with the overall reliability of your approach.

Alfred


< Message edited by hades1001 -- 2/25/2014 2:32:10 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 70
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 1:50:59 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
And regarding the screenshots, here is a few, I have only the save file with one day before the test.

The composition changes slightly and already been marked out.

My Escort Squadrons.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 71
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 1:52:12 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
bombers squadrons:

two squadrons of SB2C-1C was added the day before the battle, a total of 62 SB2C-1C.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 72
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 1:54:40 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
The strike was launched from Boela at 80,110

THe kb is at 86,109

I'll ask my opponent to take a screenshot of the fleet locations but he is in bed right now. So maybe later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Biak at 86,109

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A7M2 Sam x 598
N1K5-J George x 42
Ki-84r Frank x 26

Allied aircraft
F6F-5 Hellcat x 470
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 62
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 296
TBM-1C Avenger x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
A7M2 Sam: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-5 Hellcat: 27 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 18 destroyed, 8 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 65 destroyed, 54 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 2 destroyed by flak
TBM-1C Avenger: 5 destroyed, 11 damaged
TBM-1C Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 73
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 2:03:49 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6293
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
Ok, let's put this to bed.  As stated, there are a heck of a lot of questions in all of this.  Please attach a game file, or forward such a file to someone you feel comfortable with.  Let's take the entire region into observation & answer questions with hard facts.  As already stated, there are a lot of weird things going on in particular strike.  This game is a myriad of things going on in the back ground.  Let’s find out who, and what, was where, and how they were set up.  Air group composition, TF composition, available sorties, pilot quality, altitude, range gates, other things that may intrude on a strike load ( a sub attack prior to the raid, just as an off-the-wall example).  All of these are just a few of the things that can impact a strike.

I myself don’t really see anything off in the results considering various packages involved.  And I am an AFB.  But 3 pages of suggestions and comments without hard facts is because everything here is subjective.  And this is going to degenerate unless a series of specific things are looked at. 

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 74
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 2:10:45 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12836
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

yeah, one hour pre warning time 2000 fighters on Cap and you think you would do different having them at different altitudes. Have fun failing, not much more I can say...

the op had his fighters at 20000ft, the strikes were at 10000ft. Just FINE! He didn't have them at 1000ft or 40000ft and even then, IF YOU WOULD HAVE EVER PUT SOME WORK INTO TESTING IT, you would find out that even
that wouldn't make any NOTABLE difference. OMG anybody of you experts realised the ridicoulosly high numbers involved? Your woodoo won't help here! There is just one thing that would make ANY difference, and that
is WEATHER! Make the strike attacking these ships in Thunderstorms instead of Light cloud or clear and you will see a DIFFERENCE. Your woodoo settings won't make any difference, the numbers are just too insane.

If you guys, after all these years, are not getting over the fact that the code just can't handle these absurd numbers, then I pity you all. And no, this is no critics on the code, this is critics to all those
that still don't get it. It's not some magic fantasy settings that you guys pull out of thin air it's just the code that is not supposed to handle 1 million of soldiers fighting each other on an atoll nor 5000
aircraft colliding in the air over the whole IJN/USN/RN stacked into one hex.


Can you please calm yourself, please! This is not personal. Don't' assume what I have or haven't done. YOUR ALL CAPS ARE RUDE!!! Pity? Really?
Your exuberance is leading you to exaggerate, just a bit.

In the OP the time to target is listed at 33 minutes, not an hour. 5k planes? Where?

Different CAP settings change results. It is possible. I have tested it, but not thoroughly enough to meet rigorous testing standards of 'experts' here (which I would never call myself, by the way). Look at my join date to the left. I'm not one of the 'guys' you're battling against. I'm just trying to learn more, not win an argument.

If CAP settings don't matter, why not fly them all at 6k, or at 30k?

I've been playing in the late game with big numbers, and actually in the beta it's not nearly as bad as it was pre-beta. Some strikes get through, but a whole lot do not, and LBA can't do squat no matter the numbers, so the code is actually handling some of these things better than you think. That is a testament to the designers and michaelm consistently giving it tweaks to make it better.

If all of us just did a few tests and decided changing settings, trying out new ideas, experimenting, simply wasn't important, then I'm sure there would be a lot of boring, low quality games played.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/25/2014 3:36:11 PM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 75
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 4:15:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24324
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 76
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 4:54:51 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline
I notice a lot of planes are in stand by during the first attack, what are the skills of air group leaders ?

Although some others intercept after the attack, the time to target was 33 min and most group need 30-40 mn to intercept so they came too late.

They were only 60 japaneses bombers during the attack too so CAP still made a good job beeing probably 1 for 10 japs at the begining of the fight.

CAP isn't use correctly too, you should have different altitude and if you use only one I don't think more than 15k feet is safe.

I think the replay will show a few fighters at the begining and a lot just before the attack but it was too late.

The time to intercept increase with the time, it's probably why the last raid of B7A2 have more planes going through.

The results don't look crazy too, even with the best CAP the japs still go through during the war with A6M, B6N, D4Y2 and D3A so for A7M, D4Y4 and B7A, I found these results really poor.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 77
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:05:30 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11300
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.


Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 78
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:18:17 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.


Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 79
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:20:00 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6293
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time.


This gave me a visual of synchronized flight ops with 2 dozen carriers, sorta like movies in the 50’s. “Now we see all these carrier pivot cleanly on their sterns to course 170 true…of wait, the Franklin seems to have stumbled a bit. Oh that IS bad luck, I hope the Nassau can get out of the way in time! Oh, bad show, the Franklin seems to be back on course, but the Nassau seems to have vanished”

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 80
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:22:12 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6293
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?



Just about everyone here trying to assist has played multile games to late stage.

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 81
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:32:42 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Is that real?

For example, Bullwinkle58, has a AAR by then end of 42. Maybe he didn't post his 1945 AAR in the forum?

I'm not targeted anyone but it feels weird looking at someone talking about things they don't even know about.

Maybe I should just close the thread and end the turmoil.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?



Just about everyone here trying to assist has played multile games to late stage.



< Message edited by hades1001 -- 2/25/2014 6:34:24 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 82
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:42:19 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12836
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.


Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.


Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 83
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 5:45:15 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline
Thank you sir.

quote:



Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.



< Message edited by hades1001 -- 2/25/2014 6:49:25 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 84
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 6:01:09 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24324
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.


Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.


Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

Why would you be surprised? The point is that it is way outside of the design parameters, and this example has specifically been commented on to that effect by one developer, while in general such has been commented on to that effect by numerous developers in the past. They do not mean for the engine to support that many ships operating in one hex, and the first thing that breaks is the air model when that many carriers operate in one hex. They have said repeatedly "Don't do that!" and when someone does that, it hurts, and you are surprised that we point that out about the game? The game is not designed/coded to handle, and it doesn't handle it. They revealed that a long time ago and have repeated it a number of times.

If someone says "Hey developers, please change that." I would understand that whether I agreed with it or not. But when someone doggedly refuses to believe the developers' notice about it, I do not understand. The fact that the game handles many things that are beyond 'realistic' does not mean that it can handle everything that is beyond realistic. The fact that players do such things, even do them frequently, does not change that.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 85
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 6:21:00 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12387
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

yeah, one hour pre warning time 2000 fighters on Cap and you think you would do different having them at different altitudes. Have fun failing, not much more I can say...

the op had his fighters at 20000ft, the strikes were at 10000ft. Just FINE! He didn't have them at 1000ft or 40000ft and even then, IF YOU WOULD HAVE EVER PUT SOME WORK INTO TESTING IT, you would find out that even
that wouldn't make any NOTABLE difference. OMG anybody of you experts realised the ridicoulosly high numbers involved? Your woodoo won't help here! There is just one thing that would make ANY difference, and that
is WEATHER! Make the strike attacking these ships in Thunderstorms instead of Light cloud or clear and you will see a DIFFERENCE. Your woodoo settings won't make any difference, the numbers are just too insane.

If you guys, after all these years, are not getting over the fact that the code just can't handle these absurd numbers, then I pity you all. And no, this is no critics on the code, this is critics to all those
that still don't get it. It's not some magic fantasy settings that you guys pull out of thin air it's just the code that is not supposed to handle 1 million of soldiers fighting each other on an atoll nor 5000
aircraft colliding in the air over the whole IJN/USN/RN stacked into one hex.


Can you please calm yourself, please! This is not personal. Don't' assume what I have or haven't done. YOUR ALL CAPS ARE RUDE!!! Pity? Really?
Your exuberance is leading you to exaggerate, just a bit.

In the OP the time to target is listed at 33 minutes, not an hour. 5k planes? Where?

Different CAP settings change results. It is possible. I have tested it, but not thoroughly enough to meet rigorous testing standards of 'experts' here (which I would never call myself, by the way). Look at my join date to the left. I'm not one of the 'guys' you're battling against. I'm just trying to learn more, not win an argument.

If CAP settings don't matter, why not fly them all at 6k, or at 30k?

I've been playing in the late game with big numbers, and actually in the beta it's not nearly as bad as it was pre-beta. Some strikes get through, but a whole lot do not, and LBA can't do squat no matter the numbers, so the code is actually handling some of these things better than you think. That is a testament to the designers and michaelm consistently giving it tweaks to make it better.

If all of us just did a few tests and decided changing settings, trying out new ideas, experimenting, simply wasn't important, then I'm sure there would be a lot of boring, low quality games played.




You could have all at 6k or 30k. Or like I have posted, all at 40k which would be beyond the fighters ceiling. And again, it would not have changed the outcome of this battle. The altitude he had his fighters
was just fine and it was not the reason for the outcome. There is only one reason and I got no idea how many times I have to repeat myself, the code just can't handle these numbers. Why is this so hard to
understand? Why is there this party on the forum trying to explain absurd outcomes of absurd battles due to absurd numbers involved? There is and always was only one reason, NUMBERS. Not altitude, not TF composition
not woodoo, like some ppl here seem to repeatadly try to bring up in a religious way.

I am not talking about playing around in a PBEM late war, I am saying testing. Testing means taking the time to set up a scenario, then put a ****load of ships into it and air units both onto land bases and ships
and then try to prove the woodoo that some people try to get out of the game that isn't in there. In the end you will find out, heck, I have tried it 50 times now and it didn't help. Could it be that most of what
I was told is nothing but BS (sorry to say it this way). First I have been playing thousands of hours, I have tried things to do that just didn't work and for me they weren't supposed to work. I fought battles on
the forum for years about these things. Then, instead of wasting my time writing stuff on the forum, getting an answer that blew the brain out of my head, repeating and wasting more time, I just started to setup
a test scenario and spent endless time just sitting there watching huge air battles on and on. Rinse, repeat. Hours and hours in between waiting for PBEM turns.

And then I came to above's conclusion. Believe it or don't. Those that are on the other side of mine, I'd say "I call and want to see what you've got". I have seen endless numbers of combat reports supporting my
side, no AAR seen yet what my opposition claims. None, never. And still it might work one out of x times, but not because of woodoo settings, just because of some die roll that went in your favour. But in the majority
of times, it won't. Why? Because what works ok with a hundred involved aircraft totally fails when there are 4000+ involved. Surprised?

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 86
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 6:57:39 PM   
LoBaron


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs
The fact that the game handles many things that are beyond 'realistic' does not mean that it can handle everything that is beyond realistic. The fact that players do such things, even do them frequently, does not change that.


Thats probably the central point here.

And no, obvert, I don´t think that a single experienced player here would amass "95% of the USN in a single hex" in a potential combat environment, at least not without being absolutely aware of the consequences.

PS: Just a hint: arguing with CT when he gets all emotional isn´t worth it. He will only read 50% of your posts content, decide which part of the remaining 50% is the more irritating to him, and then get even more emotional on those 25% while completely missing the target (or failing to understand that what he gets emotional about has been already discussed ages ago).







< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/25/2014 8:01:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 87
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 7:17:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11300
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time.


This gave me a visual of synchronized flight ops with 2 dozen carriers, sorta like movies in the 50’s. “Now we see all these carrier pivot cleanly on their sterns to course 170 true…of wait, the Franklin seems to have stumbled a bit. Oh that IS bad luck, I hope the Nassau can get out of the way in time! Oh, bad show, the Franklin seems to be back on course, but the Nassau seems to have vanished”


Ask the USS Evans.

Two-dozen would be generous for the moves this guy tried. 95% of the entire USN in 40-miles. Picture that famous photo of Ulithi Atoll fleet anchorage in the late war. Now add hundreds more ships. Now make them all move at once.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 88
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 7:18:50 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11300
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Is that real?

For example, Bullwinkle58, has a AAR by then end of 42. Maybe he didn't post his 1945 AAR in the forum?

I'm not targeted anyone but it feels weird looking at someone talking about things they don't even know about.

Maybe I should just close the thread and end the turmoil.



Ya think?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 89
RE: Is those supposed to happen? - 2/25/2014 7:20:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11300
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.


Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.


Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.


I don't recall what the dispossition of your opponent's carriers was. Him losing 20-ish CVEs was pretty spectacular, yeah. ]

But he didn't put 95% of the ENTIRE USN in one hex. See the diff?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/25/2014 8:24:27 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Is those supposed to happen? 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

0.168