Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 1:31:48 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

In a discussion with El Cid some time ago he pointed out that at a certain time the Japanese side gets an automatic reduction in their air to air combat capability. I must admit that I didn't think this hidden modification really existed, but I ran a few tests and it did. However, after running more tests I came to the conclusion that the modification was a little high for my tastes. The Japanese side is already going to be suffering from terrible replacement pilots, so I don't think the modifier whould be as strong as it is.

I wonder if anyone has any ideas on how to offset this modification? Not quite do away with it, just lessen it's effects. I was thinking about adding an extra point or two to any Japanese plane's Manuever rating if the plane arrives after the date that this modification starts.

That brings up another question - I've forgotten when this modification takes place. Is it September 1943?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 6:47:54 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Thinking about this - I don't like tampering with data - but what about the AIR UNIT data? Maybe we can rate UNITS that appear after this date with higher morale? Right now they are badly rated - for sound historical reasons.

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 2

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 6:53:42 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The only advantage the engine gives the Japanese is the Zero bonus. When it kicks in is in the manual that comes with the game. I looked it up. The bonus is to the Zero's maneuverability rating.

Dec 41 +5
Jan 42 +4
Feb 42 +3
Mar 42 +2
Apr 42 +1

I know of no other Japanese air to air bonuses.

Bill

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 3

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 10:20:13 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Cid,

Can you give us precise details of this hard-coded reduction in Japanese combat capability?

I've got to say that it seems silly to me to hard-code something like this into the game whereby the pilots I have at the end of August suddenly, 24 hours later, begin acting with 10 or 20 ( or whatever) less experience. The japanese strategic situation will take care of their pilot quality in a timely enough fashion against a good allied player. Yet another deus ex machina solution which is unnecessary

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 4

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 10:34:17 AM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

if it is true it would explain a lot
certainly it is weird to both limit pilots exp and have hardcoded tweaks that limit that further
it is much more weird than zero bonus

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 5

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 11:17:50 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The only advantage the engine gives the Japanese is the Zero bonus. When it kicks in is in the manual that comes with the game. I looked it up. The bonus is to the Zero's maneuverability rating.

Dec 41 +5
Jan 42 +4
Feb 42 +3
Mar 42 +2
Apr 42 +1

I know of no other Japanese air to air bonuses.

Bill

Hello...

Nor do the programmers.

Bye...

Michael Wood

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 6

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 11:22:30 AM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

In a discussion with El Cid some time ago he pointed out that at a certain time the Japanese side gets an automatic reduction in their air to air combat capability. I must admit that I didn't think this hidden modification really existed, but I ran a few tests and it did. However, after running more tests I came to the conclusion that the modification was a little high for my tastes. The Japanese side is already going to be suffering from terrible replacement pilots, so I don't think the modifier whould be as strong as it is.

I wonder if anyone has any ideas on how to offset this modification? Not quite do away with it, just lessen it's effects. I was thinking about adding an extra point or two to any Japanese plane's Manuever rating if the plane arrives after the date that this modification starts.

That brings up another question - I've forgotten when this modification takes place. Is it September 1943?

Hi,

as far as I know, there is no negative modification for the Japanese but a positive modification (or the removal of a penalty) for the Allies.

The rules (section 7.2.2.11) state that "in 1942 Allied coordination is generally not as good as the Japanese's". Frag (or Mogami) told us sometime ago (in the forum) that there is a bonus for Allied fighter coordination beginning in June 1943 (but this is not in the manual).

Anyway, no malus for the Japanese but either a bonus or the end of a negative modifier for the Allies.

K

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 7

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 12:40:43 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Didn't the Allies get CAP "bounce" bonus sometime in 1943? That and Zero bonus is all I know to exist. Is the CAP "Bounce" bonus same as co-ordination bonus ?

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 9/6/2006 12:42:05 PM >

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 8

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 12:53:05 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Didn't the Allies get CAP "bounce" bonus sometime in 1943? That and Zero bonus is all I know to exist. Is the CAP "Bounce" bonus same as co-ordination bonus ?

Yup, I just called it "fighter coordination bonus". Sounded better than "Bounce" bonus

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 9

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 1:14:03 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The only advantage the engine gives the Japanese is the Zero bonus. When it kicks in is in the manual that comes with the game. I looked it up. The bonus is to the Zero's maneuverability rating.

Dec 41 +5
Jan 42 +4
Feb 42 +3
Mar 42 +2
Apr 42 +1

I know of no other Japanese air to air bonuses.

Bill

He isn't talking about a BONUS - but rather a PENALTY. It is date related. He is proposing a bonus to compensate in part for this. It is a big deal - and nothing we can do will completely mitigate it. Try air combat in 1944 to find out. Try air attacks on ANYTHING - however poorly protected too. Run two versions of your test - one in 1942 and one in 1944 - otherwise IDENTICAL situations - just a date change.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/6/2006 1:27:40 PM >

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 10

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 1:19:38 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

Can you give us precise details of this hard-coded reduction in Japanese combat capability?

I've got to say that it seems silly to me to hard-code something like this into the game whereby the pilots I have at the end of August suddenly, 24 hours later, begin acting with 10 or 20 ( or whatever) less experience. The japanese strategic situation will take care of their pilot quality in a timely enough fashion against a good allied player. Yet another deus ex machina solution which is unnecessary

To begin at the end, I agree with you. It is really silly. Hard coding is very hard to deal with if you change your mind - and the combination of "do it this way - don't test - and assume it is perfect" is fatal. It relates in part to the kind of programmers originally attracted to Matrix - and you can see this in what they do well: they are graphics oriented people - and in graphics there is a whole lot less need to worry about "will it do what I intend" than in simulation. They gave us a fantastic platform - on a standard interface (Direct X) - more than is really needed at this point - but they saddled us with a lot of unfortunate hard code. I think this is going to change. They have a broader set of programmers now - and they probably have learned by experience - soft coding is much wiser - and soft coding with testing/calibrating is wiser still.

To end at the beginning - no I cannot. But it is severe. I ran a 100% air attack on a US fleet with NO air cover in Kure in 1945 - and lost virtually the entire JAAF and JNAF in one day - for a single ineffective hit on USS New Jersey! These planes cannot deliver bombs - much less fight in the sky. Joe guessed the date was 1 July 1943 - it is officially "mid 1943" - and Joe says "one day my fighters are competative - the next day they are not - it is a razor sharp edge"

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 11

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 1:26:38 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

In a discussion with El Cid some time ago he pointed out that at a certain time the Japanese side gets an automatic reduction in their air to air combat capability. I must admit that I didn't think this hidden modification really existed, but I ran a few tests and it did. However, after running more tests I came to the conclusion that the modification was a little high for my tastes. The Japanese side is already going to be suffering from terrible replacement pilots, so I don't think the modifier whould be as strong as it is.

I wonder if anyone has any ideas on how to offset this modification? Not quite do away with it, just lessen it's effects. I was thinking about adding an extra point or two to any Japanese plane's Manuever rating if the plane arrives after the date that this modification starts.

That brings up another question - I've forgotten when this modification takes place. Is it September 1943?

Hi,

as far as I know, there is no negative modification for the Japanese but a positive modification (or the removal of a penalty) for the Allies.

The rules (section 7.2.2.11) state that "in 1942 Allied coordination is generally not as good as the Japanese's". Frag (or Mogami) told us sometime ago (in the forum) that there is a bonus for Allied fighter coordination beginning in June 1943 (but this is not in the manual).

Anyway, no malus for the Japanese but either a bonus or the end of a negative modifier for the Allies.

K

Joe Wilkerson was convinced there was a sharp function set by date from his 12,000 turns playing experience. Eventually we found a programmer who said (from memory) there is - "in mid 1943" - and Joe guessed it was "probably 1 July." You can show by date manipulation - start a game after this period - that ANY plane and ANY unit - is MUCH less effective - in otherwise identical situations. I summarized a test this way: "Japan may as well forget about its air forces. They are combat ineffective." This applies to all aspects of air operations: air combat,
land attack and naval attacks. I do not know the nature of the change - but I suspect it is a date controlled branch in the routines which does not cut in if the date condition is not set. It might do something like say "experience = 01". Even if it said "experience = 10" (much more Matrix like form) - the effect would be pretty terrible.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 12

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 2:31:20 PM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The only advantage the engine gives the Japanese is the Zero bonus. When it kicks in is in the manual that comes with the game. I looked it up. The bonus is to the Zero's maneuverability rating.

Dec 41 +5
Jan 42 +4
Feb 42 +3
Mar 42 +2
Apr 42 +1

I know of no other Japanese air to air bonuses.

Bill

Hello...

Nor do the programmers.

Bye...

Michael Wood

an allied bonus, not an japanese one.

< Message edited by bstarr -- 9/6/2006 2:36:30 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Wood)

Post #: 13

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 4:50:34 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

Can you give us precise details of this hard-coded reduction in Japanese combat capability?

I've got to say that it seems silly to me to hard-code something like this into the game whereby the pilots I have at the end of August suddenly, 24 hours later, begin acting with 10 or 20 ( or whatever) less experience. The japanese strategic situation will take care of their pilot quality in a timely enough fashion against a good allied player. Yet another deus ex machina solution which is unnecessary

To begin at the end, I agree with you. It is really silly. Hard coding is very hard to deal with if you change your mind - and the combination of "do it this way - don't test - and assume it is perfect" is fatal. It relates in part to the kind of programmers originally attracted to Matrix - and you can see this in what they do well: they are graphics oriented people - and in graphics there is a whole lot less need to worry about "will it do what I intend" than in simulation. They gave us a fantastic platform - on a standard interface (Direct X) - more than is really needed at this point - but they saddled us with a lot of unfortunate hard code. I think this is going to change. They have a broader set of programmers now - and they probably have learned by experience - soft coding is much wiser - and soft coding with testing/calibrating is wiser still.

To end at the beginning - no I cannot. But it is severe. I ran a 100% air attack on a US fleet with NO air cover in Kure in 1945 - and lost virtually the entire JAAF and JNAF in one day - for a single ineffective hit on USS New Jersey! These planes cannot deliver bombs - much less fight in the sky. Joe guessed the date was 1 July 1943 - it is officially "mid 1943" - and Joe says "one day my fighters are competative - the next day they are not - it is a razor sharp edge"

Total "WAG" here, but it sounds like someone's "quick fix" when it was discovered that by using some of the exploits for "on map training", the Japanese were still fielding entire units of experiance 90+ pilots in 1944. Even Matrix knew that couldn't be right, but instead of dealing with the real problem.....

Just a guess...., but it fits in with a lot of other "oddities" that have cropped up.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 14

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 7:55:22 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Cid,

Thanks for the feedback... I find it amusing that Mike Wood pops in to correct the thing about a "jap bonus" but doesn't comment on what seems to be a much larger issue.

Can you confirm that this hard coded "you're sh1t" tag applies not only to air to air combat but ALSO to naval and ground attack missions ( possibly even recon) ?� If so it is an even less defensible issue.

Idea: I'm not sure if this is possible or not but would it be possible to set the start date of a game to 7th December 1931 such that it ends in 1936 and never runs into the mid-43 era? It is an imperfect fix but date fixes are a time-honoured way of getting around hard-coded effects linked to dates and I'm sure people could put up with " add 10 to the year". Probaby can't be done but I figured it was worth floating.�

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/6/2006 8:11:42 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 15

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 8:33:07 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

The RHS air combat samples I posted in that other thread were all run in 1944. Apart from the 50 aircraft limit problem the results didn't seem outlandish, given all pilots were experience 99.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 16

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 9:31:36 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Perhaps, as a test you could run a series of tests in January 43 and then the same tests in january 44 and compare and contrast. I'd be willing to help run one end of these tests as I think this is a serious issue which needs to be either confirmed or disproved ASAP.

By having only date as a variable it should be possible to reach conclusive results. I do think both series should be run with experience 75 pilots as thats about the best experience players are likely to see in-game.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/6/2006 9:33:27 PM >

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 17

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 10:32:51 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

as a test you could run a series of tests in January 43 and then the same tests in january 44

I agree and will do that.

By having only date as a variable it should be possible to reach conclusive results. I do think both series should be run with experience 75 pilots as thats about the best experience players are likely to see in-game.

I am working up a test scenario using the B-Mod data. So far not too bad - and per your suggestion earlier I am using experience level & morale levels of 75.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 18

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 10:35:38 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

My understanding is that there is no drop off of Japanese abilities but there is an increase to USN CArrier CAP Co ordination not as a hard coded ability but as of I think its 4/43 when the superb CSP-1 Air Search Radar becomes available on US CV's (I thin Wasps and Essexs get it in 4/43 others in the 10/43 upgrade cycle)

My understanding is the Radar improves the early ability of CAP to be in positions as its range is 400k compared to 150k of the previous type this may appear as a CAP advantage but its radar driven

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 19

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 10:38:11 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Just to be clear I have no knowledge of this fact from a programmer etc but it has always been my assumption that this upgrade is one of the most critical ones for the USN CV's and anecdotally it gives an advantage to USN CAP

Andy

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 20

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 10:46:56 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

That radar also upgrades all US Land Base Forces at the same time improving CAP ability so its not a hard coded thing its a device thing

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 21

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 11:33:48 PM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Perhaps, as a test you could run a series of tests in January 43 and then the same tests in january 44 and compare and contrast. I'd be willing to help run one end of these tests as I think this is a serious issue which needs to be either confirmed or disproved ASAP.

By having only date as a variable it should be possible to reach conclusive results. I do think both series should be run with experience 75 pilots as thats about the best experience players are likely to see in-game.

I've already done that, but it's been some time ago - I'd rather someone else give it a fresh look at it anyway since my mind's made up on the matter. I agree with Mike S, this has got to be a cop-out shortcut to get rid of the free on map training cheat. The problem is, this little fix handicaps the hell out of player who doesn't cheat.

< Message edited by bstarr -- 9/6/2006 11:35:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 22

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 11:53:28 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
I've already done that, but it's been some time ago - I'd rather someone else give it a fresh look at it anyway since my mind's made up on the matter. I agree with Mike S, this has got to be a cop-out shortcut to get rid of the free on map training cheat. The problem is, this little fix handicaps the hell out of player who doesn't cheat.

AMEN. That's what I mean about "instead of fixing the REAL problem". Maybe in WITP II -- if we live that long.

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 23

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/6/2006 11:57:01 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

[

Total "WAG" here, but it sounds like someone's "quick fix" when it was discovered that by using some of the exploits for "on map training", the Japanese were still fielding entire units of experiance 90+ pilots in 1944. Even Matrix knew that couldn't be right, but instead of dealing with the real problem.....

Just a guess...., but it fits in with a lot of other "oddities" that have cropped up.

Amen! Halaluah! Mike Sholl for President (or something).

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 24

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/7/2006 12:01:19 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

Thanks for the feedback... I find it amusing that Mike Wood pops in to correct the thing about a "jap bonus" but doesn't comment on what seems to be a much larger issue.

Can you confirm that this hard coded "you're sh1t" tag applies not only to air to air combat but ALSO to naval and ground attack missions ( possibly even recon) ?� If so it is an even less defensible issue.

Idea: I'm not sure if this is possible or not but would it be possible to set the start date of a game to 7th December 1931 such that it ends in 1936 and never runs into the mid-43 era? It is an imperfect fix but date fixes are a time-honoured way of getting around hard-coded effects linked to dates and I'm sure people could put up with " add 10 to the year". Probaby can't be done but I figured it was worth floating.�

Nemo - you are brilliant. There are probably date coded things we would screw up though - might not be worth it.
But it might be worth trying.

Mike Sholl's idea of "fix it" seems better - but we might be able to create an interim cure. I have done this in several matters - and will change them back if the problems go away. I also did a few things on principle that fixed problems I did not know about (e.g. nuclear bombardments). There is a lot we can do - and I am glad this thread got started: we may think of things we otherwise would have ignored - and apparently we do get read by Matrix people - so maybe they will get some useful ideas for upgrades as well. [I predict this system will be used in other games - including specifically a War In Europe and a NATO era War In Europe - so getting it better will be useful for all]. Let me work on this.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 25

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/7/2006 12:02:31 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

The RHS air combat samples I posted in that� other thread were all run in 1944.� Apart from the 50 aircraft limit problem the results didn't seem outlandish, given all pilots were experience 99.

Maybe the problem is fixed in 1.80 or 1.81? Joes comments and my tests were run on 1.6 level code.
And Joe hated the issue.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 26

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/7/2006 12:05:04 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

My understanding is that there is no drop off of Japanese abilities but there is an increase to USN CArrier CAP Co ordination not as a hard coded ability but as of I think its 4/43 when the superb CSP-1 Air Search Radar becomes available on US CV's (I thin Wasps and Essexs get it in 4/43 others in the 10/43 upgrade cycle)

My understanding is the Radar improves the early ability of CAP to be in positions as its range is 400k compared to 150k of the previous type this may appear as a CAP advantage but its radar driven

IF radar is related to this, the problem may be much reduced in RHS. RHS starts Japan with a few radars (they date from before the war) on land - and upgrades so that by midwar some radar is on major ships - particularly carriers.
It is not, however, great radar - and the range is actually 10 miles less than it was in CHS (when it was not widely available). Still - it is a lot better than sound detectors. Note also that sound detectors were grossly underrated in stock and CHS - and are given their real ratings in RHS - which are not great - but not virtually worthless either. What I don't know how to fix is the practically worthless value of visual spotters? Ideas?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/7/2006 12:06:43 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 27

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/7/2006 12:07:11 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

These planes cannot deliver bombs - much less fight in the sky. Joe guessed the date was 1 July 1943 - it is officially "mid 1943" - and Joe says "one day my fighters are competative - the next day they are not - it is a razor sharp edge"

While I've heard "rumors" about an "Allied CAP Bonus" .. despite both Don and Joe looking in the code and discussing with Michael Wood .. we've never been able to find any "Allied CAP Bonus" in the code .. i.e. it doesn't exist.

However, I think Andy Mac is on to something. If most American radars upgrade in Mid-1943 .. that might explain it. The "bounce" formula does use a "detection" factor as one of its key ingredients and "detection" would certainly be impacted by radar. So the "alleged" CAP bonus could be device driven.

If someone is testing this we'd be interested in the results.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 28

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/7/2006 12:09:40 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Perhaps, as a test you could run a series of tests in January 43 and then the same tests in january 44 and compare and contrast. I'd be willing to help run one end of these tests as I think this is a serious issue which needs to be either confirmed or disproved ASAP.

By having only date as a variable it should be possible to reach conclusive results. I do think both series should be run with experience 75 pilots as thats about the best experience players are likely to see in-game.

I've already done that, but it's been some time ago - I'd rather someone else give it a fresh look at it anyway since my mind's made up on the matter. I agree with Mike S, this has got to be a cop-out shortcut to get rid of the free on map training cheat. The problem is, this little fix handicaps the hell out of player who doesn't cheat.

And for the record - I don't think the "free on map training cheat" is a cheat at all. What I DO see as a problem is the rate at which training increases ratings: it is way too fast for average cases. Yet in real life - we can do it even faster than code does - with focused effort. The main thing it takes to get better pilots is priority from senior staff - resources of various kinds - and if that is present - you really do get better pilots.

(in reply to bstarr)

Post #: 29

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/7/2006 12:31:56 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

US Radar on Carriers (air search) and all allied base forces

CXAM (ON Carriers) - Range 150, Penetration 500, Effect 50
SCR Radar - Range 250, Penetration 500, Effect 70

Both Upgrade as of 1/43 (subject to carrier upgrade cycles) to

CSP -1 Radar - Range 400, Penetration 500, Effect 80

Basically the CSP -1 Radar if it works as I think it does will mean more Fighters on CAP at the correct Bounce Altitude so less pilots having to climb to intercept when on CAP basically better allied fighter performance when on CAP and out to 6 or 7 hexes from any base (400/60) less chance for Japanese pilots to surprise or bounce allied air units.

This is fairly powerfull.

I think the best Japanese radar has range 100 and effect 45 so at best 2 hex bonus and lower strength than allied

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 9/7/2006 12:40:50 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff