The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3636
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: another disaster

Post by Captain Cruft »

OK well those units look OK.

One thing I have wondered about is what is the effect of having multiple Air HQs in the same hex? Which ones does it use to make the die rolls? Or does it get confused?

Other than that, if you still have 4362 planes there after such a nuking all is perhaps not lost.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: another disaster

Post by Nemo121 »

GJ,

I've posted this in Rader's but I think it worth putting here. This is what happens when you send enough fighters to swamp the CAP. That's why you've seen it with three big strikes- your CAP jut ran out of passes before they got to te bombers.

Mock yourself up a scenario vs CV TFs with massed fighters and you'll see this can be reliably reproduced, it isn't a result of bad die rolls. My tested ( which I'll send if you want) has something like 30 CVs, 60 or so CVEs/CVLS and a couple of dozen BBs. A single day of strikes vs the 2,000 or so fighters on CAP tends to result in an average of 10 or so CVS, 30 to 40 CVEs and about 8 BBs sunk, with many more damaged or left in a sinking condition.

What happens is that the big raids get through because the CAP seems not to have firing passes left to attrition the bombers. End result, the bombers all get through and there's a massacre.

Going forward, until the code is changed ths will continue happening. I'm certain that these results are one reason Damian is not advancing rapidly in my game. He's worried that I'll swamp his CAP.

As to this being mentioned in tech support. It has been and Da Babes members decided to attack the who did and call into question their motives and integrity. So, if anyone here thinks the model is broken put your money where your mouth is and back up those who tred to get this fixed weeks ago.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
cwDeici
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:49 am

RE: another disaster

Post by cwDeici »

Personally I think you should rerun that round after adding a HR a rule against swamping CAPs.
It'll ruin your fun if you keep on going after this round.

Perfectly realistic bombing is disallowed because it wouldn't be fun, unrealistic bombing should also be disallowed when it isn't fun.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7833
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: another disaster

Post by jwilkerson »

BTW this phenomena is not unique to AE. We had the same problem in WITP.

In WITP, if you hit any CAP with 3 or more strikes in the same day, then the cap is toast. In AE this is mitigated to SOME extent. The cap is rotated in AE, so a larger number of planes at the base cannot be worn out with three strikes every time. In other words, in WITP the three strikes against the same CAP is a sure fired formula. In AE, it is not a sure fired formula, but you can still get to the same result with enough strikes, or even sub-flights, since AE makes more use of breaking up strikes than WITP.

So, net/net, I think AE is better than WITP in this case, but it is still not perfect. This is just one example of many where if you push the edges of the combat model as far as you can, some of the formulae implied by the code will break down.

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: another disaster

Post by aztez »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

GJ,

I've posted this in Rader's but I think it worth putting here. This is what happens when you send enough fighters to swamp the CAP. That's why you've seen it with three big strikes- your CAP jut ran out of passes before they got to te bombers.

Mock yourself up a scenario vs CV TFs with massed fighters and you'll see this can be reliably reproduced, it isn't a result of bad die rolls. My tested ( which I'll send if you want) has something like 30 CVs, 60 or so CVEs/CVLS and a couple of dozen BBs. A single day of strikes vs the 2,000 or so fighters on CAP tends to result in an average of 10 or so CVS, 30 to 40 CVEs and about 8 BBs sunk, with many more damaged or left in a sinking condition.

What happens is that the big raids get through because the CAP seems not to have firing passes left to attrition the bombers. End result, the bombers all get through and there's a massacre.

Going forward, until the code is changed ths will continue happening. I'm certain that these results are one reason Damian is not advancing rapidly in my game. He's worried that I'll swamp his CAP.

As to this being mentioned in tech support. It has been and Da Babes members decided to attack the who did and call into question their motives and integrity. So, if anyone here thinks the model is broken put your money where your mouth is and back up those who tred to get this fixed weeks ago.

I said on the other thread that you are 110% on the money with your analysis Nemo.

Personally have been busy lately with RL and just now having a bit more time to play but have to say that reading such thing as this really starting make me to think whether to actually bother with this game.

Anyone saying that the air model is not broken and seriously flawed... well safe to say that I feel opposite.

Wiping out fleets and bases will make all hours of planning waste of time.

Definately an bug and serious one... so hats of to you Nemo stating the obvious.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: another disaster

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)


Maybe I am missing something, but where do you pull the numbers from for the raid on Hakodate? I count 1200+ fighters available total against the first raid,
not 2900.

Considering the usual 1/3rd rule this means maybe 400+ available to engage the first pack.
For this the combat report shows astonishing 250+ kills, which is really good.

I agree with you that the relation between escorts and bombers is off (this is something which could be looked into), but not the total number of planes killed.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: another disaster

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
What happens is that the big raids get through because the CAP seems not to have firing passes left to attrition the bombers. End result, the bombers all get through and there's a massacre.

Going forward, until the code is changed ths will continue happening. I'm certain that these results are one reason Damian is not advancing rapidly in my game. He's worried that I'll swamp his CAP.

As to this being mentioned in tech support. It has been and Da Babes members decided to attack the who did and call into question their motives and integrity. So, if anyone here thinks the model is broken put your money where your mouth is and back up those who tred to get this fixed weeks ago.

Definitely, but the problem is not the number of firing passes, but the fact that CAP engages escorts first, and bombers second.

So were at two possible solutions:
Either change the routine how CAP chooses targets, or artificially limit the raid packages again, michael mentioned something like this.
Image
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3636
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: another disaster

Post by Captain Cruft »

I actually think the severe lack of flak kills is a more serious problem.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: another disaster

Post by LoBaron »

Jep, that was focused on in DaBabes.
Image
User avatar
Grfin Zeppelin
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Germany

RE: another disaster

Post by Grfin Zeppelin »

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I actually think the severe lack of flak kills is a more serious problem.
Well its a different problem.

Image
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: another disaster

Post by aztez »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)


Maybe I am missing something, but where do you pull the numbers from for the raid on Hakodate? I count 1200+ fighters available total against the first raid,
not 2900.

Considering the usual 1/3rd rule this means maybe 400+ available to engage the first pack.
For this the combat report shows astonishing 250+ kills, which is really good.

I agree with you that the relation between escorts and bombers is off (this is something which could be looked into), but not the total number of planes killed.

You know that we have been friends around the boards a long time but now must say that you are missing the point here.

You ram enough of whatever obsolete fighters you have as an escorts.. add tons of bombers and you can nuke bomb any airfield or as it seems to stand carrier fleet.

...to say that is fine.. than well definately not. Add the ineffective allied AA fire and you have these things happening again.. and again... and again. Rince and repeat...

Well.. hats of to you defending the the air model but to be honest it seems more flawed than in the original witp.

Oops.. yes.. it actually is more flawed [:D]
User avatar
Grfin Zeppelin
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Germany

RE: another disaster

Post by Grfin Zeppelin »

I am rather sure the problem is somewhere between everything is fine and zomg da game is broken.

Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: another disaster

Post by LoBaron »

aztez, I don´t think voicing a different opinion should be related to friendship in any way, so I´m fine with that. [:)]

I even agree that there is a problem. But not the way most people seem to interprete it, which does neccesarily not suggest I am
right, I just see it different.

A homogenous raid should get through. A single airfield should be impossible to defend against a large attack no matter what.
This was the essence of WWII. If you want to minimize losses, first concolidate, then achieve air superiority, then attack.

We are witnessing a pitched battle here with neither side holding superiority in a highly concentrated area.

On GJs side there are exactly 3 bases hosting a couple of thousand of planes. This is an extremely vulnerable position I´d
try to avoid without having the upper hand. This was a chosen approach. He also choses his tempo of operations, which is,
IMHO about 10 levels too high for the relative force balance.

The prerequisite for this situation is the belief that you should be able to stop massive counterstrikes without achiving strategic air superiority
first, which I don´t.

This is no critizism, its just my opinion.

Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: another disaster

Post by LoBaron »

Is it possible to rebalace the attack priorities of CAP when choosing targets, or the way escorts defend the strike?

If theres a slight shift toward bomber attack it might change in a good direction.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: another disaster

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.

But there's no overstacking with 9 and 10 level AFs
Well, that may read so in the manual, but how many other aspects of the *real game* air war are unreflected in the manual or incorrectly advertised in the manual?

It looks like overstacking, acts like overstacking, smells like overstacking. I'd ask a very pointed question of the devs to see if there's been a change in the game from what is advertised in the written manual.
Image
princep01
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:02 pm
Location: Texas

RE: another disaster

Post by princep01 »

Of course, these late war monster aerial battles were never playtested. Neither was the extreme power of the IJN E class escorts. If I understand it, it has to do with the number of attacks these escorts get ...and is totally unrealistic. Greyjoy and only a very few others have ever gotten this deeply into a Scenario 2 game and few enough on a Scenario 1 game. I am sure the developers are at least vaguely aware of the problems. Hopefully Greyjoy/Rader's experience gives them the data to smooth out these wrinkles. They seem to be quite significant problems.

Ser Greyjoy, watch your AF stacking and put your CAP on a higher %. I am sort of an all or nothing type, so my CAP is usually at 100% or resting.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: another disaster

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: crsutton
And, if there are not penalties then there should be in future patches. The notion of 3,000 planes at one airfield is absurd.

+1.
Image
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: another disaster

Post by kfsgo »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

aztez, I don´t think voicing a different opinion should be related to friendship in any way, so I´m fine with that. [:)]

I even agree that there is a problem. But not the way most people seem to interprete it, which does neccesarily not suggest I am
right, I just see it different.

A homogenous raid should get through. A single airfield should be impossible to defend against a large attack no matter what.
This was the essence of WWII. If you want to minimize losses, first concolidate, then achieve air superiority, then attack.

We are witnessing a pitched battle here with neither side holding superiority in a highly concentrated area.

On GJs side there are exactly 3 bases hosting a couple of thousand of planes. This is an extremely vulnerable position I´d
try to avoid without having the upper hand. This was a chosen approach. He also choses his tempo of operations, which is,
IMHO about 10 levels too high for the relative force balance.

The prerequisite for this situation is the belief that you should be able to stop massive counterstrikes without achiving strategic air superiority
first, which I don´t.

This is no critizism, its just my opinion.


I think there is a danger here in thinking of bases as 'a single airfield'. If you look at most at-start bases, places with a single major airfield tend to rate 3-4, with f.e Singapore as a '6' (one paved and I think two (or three?) grass fields), Pearl Harbour a '10' (probably about 8-10 actual airfields), Sydney an '8' (I think 4, but pretty large ones)...a hex is a pretty big place - if I drew a box around a 46mi*46mi section of the UK there'd probably be e: hang on, I did:

Image

Ok, it's a box rather than a hex, and it's right in the middle of 8th AF country, but that's just the ones that were spottable in five minutes from 20 miles up - I expect a bunch more will have deteriorated since then. Most of them are will-take-a-USAAF-Bomber-Group size, too, not little things...

I mean, realistically in the Hakodate situation you'd have a large number (10? 20? who knows) of airfields spread out along the southwestern peninsula of Hokkaido - it's not a big airfield, then 45 miles, then a big airfield, then 45 miles etc. Hokkaido is not as flat as Cambridgeshire, but then there's likely to be rather less consideration for whoever's on the land already in this sort of situation...
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: another disaster

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)

You should negotiate a HR with Raeder to deal with that problem.

There is nothing you can do against it. It does not matter how many planes you have on cap. There is a number of escorts which is nessecary to soak up all firing passes and then the strike package will always go throuhg.

If you are bored change the Downfall Scenario. Creat a Hex with 50CV/50CVE or any number of carriers + planes. Fill all the carriers with fighters, extend the carriers capacity. Create a CAP of 5000,8000 or 20000 planes. Numbers do not matter as the CAP will just have no effect. Send in a strike with a 500+ escorts and your carriers will sink.

Or fill a lvl 9 airbase with any number of planes you want (I did a test with 8000 or so planes on cap). If the strike package has enough escorts to soak up the firing passes the bombers will get through.

The engine is how it is and as soon as you start to "exploit" it you have a problem. You either need a fix (size limit of strike or fix on the firing pass limits) or a HR to deal with it.

Btw. just limiting the size of the strike package wont fix the problem either. You either create again some heavy leakiness like it is now or you create an inpenetrable CAP again.

I more or less negotiated a HR in my PBEM but our problem is only carrier related as my opponent does not have the production to just waste a 500 escorts to bring a strike on an airbase through.
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: another disaster

Post by Miller »

Yes there is definately a problem, no one can deny that. There is a way around it (for the Allies). Play historical. My game with Dan (Canoerebel) lasted until mid 45 and I can assure you for the last six months or so I never got any massive raids to go in together to swamp his CAP. I'm guessing the reason was we were fighting mainly in the Formosa/South China Sea/PI area at the time. I got lots of a/c to attack but the co-ordination was horrible. However with all those air HQs and size 9+ airfields in Japan you can get these totally ludicrous 1000+ a/c raids going in at the same time.

Cut off the Jap players oil and they will collapse eventually. The Allies CAN win the war without sending any ships within air attack range of the home islands or setting foot on them........

PS> Allied ship based flak is a joke and badly needs adjusting for the final patch.

Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”