Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamCole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamCole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

Did anyone notice the testing posted by NIC in which radar was NOT a factor? This problem is confirmed - and radar is not the source - although it may exaserbate it in a game - I regard that as OK. Radar was real. The only thing wrong with radar in stock and CHS is Japan is not given the right radar capability.

quote:

Further - note that this issue was brought to my attention by Joe Wilkerson in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

I noticed a post by Mike Wood that did NOT seem to say that. You got a different post in mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The fatal flaw in not having a PBEM turn in my intray is that I start to play with editors

Joe/ Mike thansk for clearing this up I had reached that conclusion myself on the back of my testing but its always nice to hear it straight from the top !!!!.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

There is no "drop off thingy" in the code. But, you folks seem to be having a good time, so continue.

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

OK- so riddle me this:

How did Nic get 20 run tests with such different results in identical situations in 1942 and 1944?

And how did someone else duplicate the result with 10 run tests?

Finally - why did Joe - with 12,000 turns experience (quoting) - have the wrong impression?
If radar did that - what a major impact it must have indeed!

Then there is this:

I ran a strike test in 1945 - this isn't air combat - but I found the JNAF and JAAF combat ineffective attacking a US force in the Kure Hex WITHOUT air cover. The entire Japanese forces scored one bomb hit on USS New Jersey - causing it no pain but one point in system damage. Virtually the entire force was wiped out by the gunnery air defenses of this force of warships - which was not small but not large either. Even if the air forces could penetrate fighter defenses - why have them if they cannot deliver any weapons? Granted this is not a bad description of the operational situation IRL in 1945 - that was because of horrible operational factors NOT present in my test. MY air forces were fresh - well trained - and wholly fueled - so they could fly in sufficient mass that IRL they would have achieved saturation. And I am an anti-air warfare guy - trained first of all on a ship using systems from that era.


Something is very strange here - if there is NO code - how did these tests happen? SOMETHING is going on.

(in reply to Mike Wood)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The fatal flaw in not having a PBEM turn in my intray is that I start to play with editors

Joe/ Mike thansk for clearing this up I had reached that conclusion myself on the back of my testing but its always nice to hear it straight from the top !!!!.

I did the same thing. When I first saw this thread I got concerned so I ran some tests to see for myself, Japanese had the same setup as Allies- Lvl 10 af, 100k supplies, 270 av support, 270 support, 1 airgroup per side, P-38j x 36 per side, leader for both groups used 75 for every skill, both airgroups exp 75, morale 80, bases Japanese Rockhampton, Allies Brisbane. There where other forces on the map but far away.
In my first series of test I ran without radar June 42 and June 44, whichever airgroup did the sweep usually won the day, cap was always set to 90% 10k and sweep to 10K. 2nd series With radar(CSP-1) the sweep got smashed, ergo there is no drop off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

There is no "drop off thingy" in the code. But, you folks seem to be having a good time, so continue.

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

OK- so riddle me this:

How did Nic get 20 run tests with such different results in identical situations in 1942 and 1944?

And how did someone else duplicate the result with 10 run tests?

Finally - why did Joe - with 12,000 turns experience (quoting) - have the wrong impression?
If radar did that - what a major impact it must have indeed!

Then there is this:

I ran a strike test in 1945 - this isn't air combat - but I found the JNAF and JAAF combat ineffective attacking a US force in the Kure Hex WITHOUT air cover. The entire Japanese forces scored one bomb hit on USS New Jersey - causing it no pain but one point in system damage. Virtually the entire force was wiped out by the gunnery air defenses of this force of warships - which was not small but not large either. Even if the air forces could penetrate fighter defenses - why have them if they cannot deliver any weapons? Granted this is not a bad description of the operational situation IRL in 1945 - that was because of horrible operational factors NOT present in my test. MY air forces were fresh - well trained - and wholly fueled - so they could fly in sufficient mass that IRL they would have achieved saturation. And I am an anti-air warfare guy - trained first of all on a ship using systems from that era.


Something is very strange here - if there is NO code - how did these tests happen? SOMETHING is going on.

I cannot explain Nick's results but I am content there is no hard coded issue.

Re the 2nd point Allied Flak is murderous now is this realistic I dont know I am not an expert in this field I would ask who owned Kure if it was an allied base you also have to contend with LCU flak. Also NJ on her own has got more flak than a 42 Carrier TF

(in reply to el cid again)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.

I have never seen any result like this in all the time I've been playing/testing stock WITP (and I have seen many WITP battles in '45). I also can't imagine (in a normal version) how the ships had enough AA ammo to down over a thousand aircraft in one engagement.

My guess would be that the result was related to some changes you must have made with your mod at the time.

Why not simply repeat the test with stock or a more current version of your own mod and see if there is any evidence to indicate the problem's still there.

Cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.

That's a bit high (both in number of attackers and in number lost). Statistically, one of every two Japanese A/C that made it into "flak range" in 1944-45 was shot down (does not include Kamakazes, just A/C trying to make regular attacks)...., which would imply most of the rest being damaged and perhaps "driven off". But some "leakers" almost always got through to drop their ordnance (though with how much accuracy I don't have numbers)

quote:

Your assumptions are backwards: this test was run at a time there was no RHS mod to use. We were trying to add some planes to semi-carriers - and to understand if semi-carriers would work at all? We did this in stock scenario 15 with nothing special except changes of location of units to facilitate a maximum air attack on an unprotected task force.

quote:


One other detail you seem confused about: it was not a single engagement; it was a single DAY. I reported a number of raids - and each raid is properly called an engagement. There were both large and small raids - but about 8 should have penetrated any TF air defenses. Actually, about 4 did penetrate the defenses with trivial numbers of planes, but all but one failed to score any hits. These planes had normal expertise - they were not penalized as often happens late in the war by massive losses (it being a new game) or combat operations (it being their first operation).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

Mike was answering a post after mine which totally misunderstood what I was saying. Mike said there was "No Japanese bonus" which is true. I said there was a modifier, but certainly not a bonus; it's a negative modifier. And I've run tests. Unless it was changed in the last patch, there is a negative modifier to the japanese after the fall of 43. The test I ran had everything identical - pilot skill, leadership, numbers, and even the planes (I altered the japanese planes to have the exact same stats as the P-40E, which is what the Allies were flying). When these two forces met after late '43 the allies always won, sometimes quite handily.