Let me know if i understood...

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

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

beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

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

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

Until right now we know:

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

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

p.s.: And yes there are a gazillion of different tests but as you do a systematic one it would be nice if you test all possible cases.
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by CT Grognard »

Absolutely agree.

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

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

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

Works pretty well.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by EUBanana »

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

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

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

...And then theres the escorts as meatshields thing...
Image
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by EUBanana »

It's heartening to see fighters at low altitude doing better though. What is the altitude of the attackers? Looks like they really can fly under CAP, at least as far as bomber strikes are concerned. Shame CAP can't also fly under sweeps...
Image
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

Another test...same settings but slightly different altitudes...
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53
 
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
 
Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes
 
Japanese aircraft
      P1Y2 Frances x 50
      Ki-84r Frank x 50
 
 
 
Allied aircraft
      P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100
 
 
Japanese aircraft losses
      P1Y2 Frances: 25 destroyed, 7 damaged
      P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
      Ki-84r Frank: 16 destroyed
 
Allied aircraft losses
      P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed
 
Allied Ships
      CVE Sangamon
      BB Colorado, Torpedo hits 1
      BB Valiant
      BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
      CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
 
 
Aircraft Attacking:
      10 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
               Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
 
CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 8000.
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 11000.
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 11000.
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
      4 planes vectored on to bombers
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 12000.
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
 
 

Altidue is critical...agree. But 200 fighters is never enough against 50 fighters and 50 bombers...you cannot stop them.
 
Let's try again with always the same numbers on Japanese side and 400 fighters at 6,000 with 50% CAP....range 0
 
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

...and finally.... 400 fighters on 50% CAP, same altitude as bombers, 0 range....are able to stop the raid...
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53
 
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
 
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes
 
Japanese aircraft
      P1Y2 Frances x 50
      Ki-84r Frank x 50
 
 
 
Allied aircraft
      P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 200
 
 
Japanese aircraft losses
      P1Y2 Frances: 29 destroyed, 3 damaged
      P1Y2 Frances: 2 destroyed by flak
      Ki-84r Frank: 9 destroyed
 
No Allied losses
 
Allied Ships
      BB Colorado
      CVE Chenango
 
 
 
Aircraft Attacking:
       6 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
               Naval Attack:  1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
 
CAP engaged:
31st Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 67 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      33 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 42000.
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
      24 planes vectored on to bombers
31st Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 67 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      33 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 12000.
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
      36 planes vectored on to bombers
 
 
 
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

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

But why are you changing the goal of the tests? Stopping the raid was never the issue, it was getting a chance to engage and shoot down the bombers that was the goal. You can't expect to stop every bombing attack, some of the bombers should be getting through, but not all of them. I thought that was the problem.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

So basically... to hope to stop a 50+50 strike you need to have 4x number of fighters on 50% CAP...and you have to guess the right altitude...which is, as we know, more or less impossible in RL games... You have to be able to counter sweeps, Dive bombers (from 10k to 14k), torpedo bombers (every alt), high alt kamikaze etc etc...so you need to have different altitudes among your CAP..
 
And please, note that we're talking about a very small attacking strike... in our games, we know, strikes are four, five or even six times bigger...
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

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

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

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

tonight i'll do some more tests...

But the idea that to be effective you need to be at the same altitude as bombers is something that disturbs me... probably because i always thought "higher is better"...
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by EUBanana »

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

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

I am actually greatly heartened to see that there is a reason to set altitude at a lower level for CAP. Bombers flying under CAP has been a bit of a legend I think but its good to see hard evidence that they really can.
Image
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

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

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

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

tonight i'll do some more tests...

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


A couple of thoughts.

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

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

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

What needs to be done is establishing roughly where the number of enemy escorts prevents attacking the enemy bombers from even happening.
User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by JohnDillworth »

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

tonight i'll do some more tests...

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

I wonder if experience has any bearing on the effectiveness of escorts? I would think that escorting bombers would require quire a bit of experience and discipline. Rookies would get out of position at the first sign of trouble. I mention this because in your game the IJA pilots probably have pretty low experience levels yet they stick like glue to the bombers
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
witp1951
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Tennessee

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by witp1951 »

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

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

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

Dog
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by veji1 »

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

On average we should see something like only 12-15 bombers being able to initiate their pass, with only 4-6 actually launching after facing the Flak and just a couple of hits. That's what I would expect with those numbers and experience gap.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

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

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

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

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

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

The air war in WitP has always been a cat and mouse game as long as experienced opponents play it.
You try to read you opponent and adapt, and on the other hand surprise him and not act according to
his expectations.
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by PaxMondo »

GJ,
 
Not sure what you're looking for here.  Nice tests, pretty much as expected IMO.  You are largely stopping the raid with 2:1 ... "largely" means a few hits though.  It doesn't suggest no damage.
 
Let's start at the beginning and let's stay focused.  If you are looking to get historical results from any model, you need to first input historical data.  Your game is NOT historical.  Not close.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  So to start, you can't expect to anything close to historical results in your testing.
 
What is not historical?
 
Let's start with the IJ pilots.  The air groups are not the combination of low morale, desperate, burned out, experienced few pilots filled out with 18 yo kamikazes that pretty much defined end of war IJ air groups.  Instead you are facing well trained, high morale groups.  Ask any pilot how big a deal this is.  Huge.  And we know in the model this is also huge.  LoBaron, Damian, any of the air model experts will confirm this.
 
Second: air frames.  You are not facing the hordes of early war air frames that was historically the case.  The A6M2 is not in play, as it actually was.  Instead you are facing far better, although still not on par with allied, air frames.  Again, huge.  Instead of a +100 knot speed advantage, you have on average more like only 50 knots.  Still large, but far less than historical.  And the bombers instead of being Ronson's now have armor ... again, big change.
 
Quality: You are facing air craft from well supplied LAND BASES than there is any historical comparative.  The closest you have is the Phllipines, but the numbers were still smaller and the supply wasn't as good.  Meaning, some not insignificant numbers of the aircraft sortied those days with: not all armaments loaded or functioning, not fully functioning airframes ...  This aspect isn't modelled well in the game, but it is a large factor in your comparison to historical results.
 
Now go look at the actual combat records of the late war great air battles.  The allied fighter cover had 2:1 or better advantage in numbers in those fights.  If you expectation isn't at least that, it needs to be reset.  Now, take that 2:1 and modify it further for the above 3 factors.  How high do you need to be?  Pure speculation of course, but way above 2:1 is pretty safe.
 
Now, go back and read up on the planning for the invasion of Japan.  The projected losses were horrific.  The 1945 analysis was that they could NOT completely defend the fleet against an all out attack, there were going to be substantial losses, and only ONE chance to make a landing.  Far higher risk than Normandy.  This is what compelled Truman to use the nuke(s).  Agree or not with the analyses, but that is what they were. 
 
I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem with very large air combats.  Of course there is.  My testing last year proved it to me.  When I raised the issue, I got no response.  So then I did some searching and found out why.  There are several threads (search back a couple years ago when they were trying to fix the uber-CAP) with the devs well knowing this issue and working to mitigate it.  The thread's don't have all the conclusions as to what was actually done, but pretty clear that it was known and being worked on.  JWE has shared his HR's in rader's AAR to further mitigate this, which by now you also have.
 
So what's the bottom line here?  The good news is that as a PBEM player, you actually can install HR's to mitigate this somewhat.  It might very well take 4:1 fighter or higher CAP to provide "air tight" results, but you can get there.  At 2:1, you get some losses, but knowing this you can mitigate the effects nicely.  All of this cuts both ways: it is not one sided at all.  IJ faces exactly the same challenges, so this is not a game balance issue.
 
 
Me?  I'm an AI player, there aren't any HR's, and I haven't quite figured this one out yet.  I already know from my Downfall testing the AI is going to send in 100's of B-29's at 6000 ft at night as soon as it has the opportunity.  I know, and you do too, that there is no CAP / AA defense against this.  They will destroy all industry at the targetted base in 2 - 4 turns and then move onto the next base.  My only defense is to never allow that to happen ... ok, a good challenge.  [;)]
 
PS: If you want to do a "historical" test, change the IJ units to A6M2 with Betty's.  Set the pilot exp to about 40, morale to about 40, move in a good leader and 2 - 3 high exp pilots into each group and let it go.  See your results then.  Bet you get quite close to historical results with air combat of less than 200 total a/c (i.e. complete destruction of the IJ units and maybe 2 - 3 kami hits)
 
Just my thoughts ...
Pax
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by CT Grognard »

Brilliant post, PaxMondo.
 
Let's look at the Battle of the Philippine Sea - the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on 19 June 1944.
 
The first Japanese raid consisted of only 69 Zeroes, Judies and Graces - some of them flown by very green pilots.
 
Over 200 F6F-3 Hellcats with experienced naval pilots met this raid more than 50 miles out from TF58. Only 27 Japanese planes got through that first screen; a second fighter screen destroyed a further 16 Japanese planes. The remaining eleven Japanese aircraft attacked two US picket destroyers and some Judies managed to get through to the battleship line and landed a bomb hit on the South Dakota.
 
The second raid was 119 Japanese aircraft. They were also engaged more than 50m out by over 200 Hellcats. Despite being outnumbered and the distance from the US ships, twenty planes still managed to break through all the way to the carriers but were then decimated by AAA. Four Judies tried to bomb USS Wasp but she managed to elude them.
 
So we see that in June 1944, with poor quality Japanese pilots, facing an extremely well-layered and directed CAP with superior airframes, you still had about 15% of the Japanese attackers getting through to attempt a target run (and then being ineffectual and decimated by AAA).
 
I really don't think it's implausible then if the game engine has 50 Frances and 50 Franks being countered by 200 P-47s and 12% of the Frances bombers manage to get through for a target run.
 
I have said often that I think the air model in this game works very well (except for massive non-historical size raids over 300 or so aircraft) but that a concern in the stock scenarios is how ineffectual Allied ship AA is. Da Big Babes goes a long way towards addressing this.
 
 
 
 
 
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by EUBanana »

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

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

The CAP does not have enough hardcoded passes to do any more than saw at the escort, so you see the meatshields get shot down while the bombers are totally untouched.
Image
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by CT Grognard »

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

Carrier-launched strikes already have their chances of uncoordination doubled if the TF has more aircraft than 200 + RND(200). You could do the same with land-based strikes!
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”