AE Improvement Suggestions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AE Improvement Suggestions

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 >> AE Improvement Suggestions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/10/2009 10:55:10 PM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

I just finished the GDL scenario and I noticed a few things that I think can be improved or fixed. Here are my thoughts. I would welcome any comments

1. ASW (air and surface) is too weak. - I have multiple ASW task forces and tons of bombers set to ASW and I can't seem to kill any Japanese subs. I have damaged many subs, but only sunk 2 in six months. I have lost more 8 ships in ASW missions to subs! I think the ships and planes need to be more effective against the subs.
2. Port Attack is ineffective - I think this is a gameplay issue, but I can't seem to damage ports or ships in the port. Air attacks need to be more effective
3. The AI does not handle repair well. I have damaged many ships and the AI only tries to repair the ships with pierside repairs even when the ship is badly damaged. The AI needs to use shipyard to repair damaged ships.
4. The AI does not load air groups on empty carriers. I suggest all AI carriers come with air groups or have the ai load up some groups. As it stands, empty carriers are essentially useless
5. Fighter Escort is ineffective. My fighters can't seem to escort bombers very well. They take about as many losses as they inflict. I would expect the enemy fighters to try to get to the bombers and take more losses doing so especially when the fighter escort has an altitude advantage.
6. Training is too slow. I have groups on training for 5 or 6 months that can't do anything well.
7. The AI needs to take advantage of conversions. As it stands, it never does so
8. The AI overtacks air units. It need to move them out of combat areas or disband them when the unit is ineffective or has lost all of it's aircraft
9. The game needs more aviation support. I have a lot more planes than aviation support.
10. Twin Engine bombers with the strafer modification are useless. I can't seem to damage or sink anything with these planes (A20 & B25) even when I train them to do so for months.
11. Strafing planes should drop bombs in addition to strafing.

Post #: 1

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/10/2009 11:05:58 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IndyShark

I just finished the GDL scenario and I noticed a few things that I think can be improved or fixed. Here are my thoughts. I would welcome any comments

1. ASW (air and surface) is too weak. - I have multiple ASW task forces and tons of bombers set to ASW and I can't seem to kill any Japanese subs. I have damaged many subs, but only sunk 2 in six months. I have lost more 8 ships in ASW missions to subs! I think the ships and planes need to be more effective against the subs.
2. Port Attack is ineffective - I think this is a gameplay issue, but I can't seem to damage ports or ships in the port. Air attacks need to be more effective
3. The AI does not handle repair well. I have damaged many ships and the AI only tries to repair the ships with pierside repairs even when the ship is badly damaged. The AI needs to use shipyard to repair damaged ships.
4. The AI does not load air groups on empty carriers. I suggest all AI carriers come with air groups or have the ai load up some groups. As it stands, empty carriers are essentially useless
5. Fighter Escort is ineffective. My fighters can't seem to escort bombers very well. They take about as many losses as they inflict. I would expect the enemy fighters to try to get to the bombers and take more losses doing so especially when the fighter escort has an altitude advantage.
6. Training is too slow. I have groups on training for 5 or 6 months that can't do anything well.
7. The AI needs to take advantage of conversions. As it stands, it never does so
8. The AI overtacks air units. It need to move them out of combat areas or disband them when the unit is ineffective or has lost all of it's aircraft
9. The game needs more aviation support. I have a lot more planes than aviation support.
10. Twin Engine bombers with the strafer modification are useless. I can't seem to damage or sink anything with these planes (A20 & B25) even when I train them to do so for months.
11. Strafing planes should drop bombs in addition to strafing.

Only if they are capable of carrying bombs though.

Additionally, planes set to sweep that do not find enemy fighters to engage should probably strafe some sort of ground target before heading home. Historically, (especially in the case of the US pilots) if a fighter pilot completed a sweep with no engagement or only light engagement they would use up the rest of their gun ammo strafing things like trucks, trains, etc on the way home....basically targets of opportunity.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to IndyShark)

Post #: 2

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/10/2009 11:12:04 PM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

Good suggestion!

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 3

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 10:15:38 AM

rubisco

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IndyShark

3. The AI does not handle repair well. I have damaged many ships and the AI only tries to repair the ships with pierside repairs even when the ship is badly damaged. The AI needs to use shipyard to repair damaged ships.

The AI uses a simplified repair model that is similar to the old WiTP repair model. Only human players use the stood down/pierside/shipyard model. When you load up a game that the AI has been playing, what you see in the repair screens is not what the AI has been doing with its ships.

(in reply to IndyShark)

Post #: 4

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 11:58:44 AM

Sonny II

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Additionally, planes set to sweep that do not find enemy fighters to engage should probably strafe some sort of ground target before heading home. Historically, (especially in the case of the US pilots) if a fighter pilot completed a sweep with no engagement or only light engagement they would use up the rest of their gun ammo strafing things like trucks, trains, etc on the way home....basically targets of opportunity.

Makes it real easy to set a flak trap.

(in reply to rubisco)

Post #: 5

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 2:14:42 PM

eMonticello

Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

quote:

Additionally, planes set to sweep that do not find enemy fighters to engage should probably strafe some sort of ground target before heading home. Historically, (especially in the case of the US pilots) if a fighter pilot completed a sweep with no engagement or only light engagement they would use up the rest of their gun ammo strafing things like trucks, trains, etc on the way home....basically targets of opportunity.

Makes it real easy to set a flak trap.

If recon flights include the number and size of AA guns in the base report and any port/ground/airfield attack provided FOW base report, then an additional option (or toggle for "Sweep") of "Sweep & Strafe" could be added.

But then again, was it truly SOP in PTO or was it just an ETO/MTO thing that was adopted after the Luftwaffe was all but neutered? At least in Europe, you aren't swimming with the sharks if you're unlucky enough to get a bullet in the radiator (or insert other vital aircraft part that forces you to ditch).

_____________________________

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Sonny II)

Post #: 6

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 3:30:29 PM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

Glad to hear about the repair model. That would be a big issue if the AI could never repair major damage

(in reply to rubisco)

Post #: 7

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 3:34:53 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I have not tried the Guadalcanal scenerio so I don't know what planes you have available, in the GC, when I sent B-17 squadrons to close a port, after a few days it was done.

The AI pounded my ports in Java and caused enough damage that the shipyard could not handle 8k tons until it repaired.

(in reply to IndyShark)

Post #: 8

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 4:16:51 PM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

I have used B17's and B24's and seen little damage.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 9

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 4:24:23 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

quote:

Additionally, planes set to sweep that do not find enemy fighters to engage should probably strafe some sort of ground target before heading home. Historically, (especially in the case of the US pilots) if a fighter pilot completed a sweep with no engagement or only light engagement they would use up the rest of their gun ammo strafing things like trucks, trains, etc on the way home....basically targets of opportunity.

Makes it real easy to set a flak trap.

If recon flights include the number and size of AA guns in the base report and any port/ground/airfield attack provided FOW base report, then an additional option (or toggle for "Sweep") of "Sweep & Strafe" could be added.

But then again, was it truly SOP in PTO or was it just an ETO/MTO thing that was adopted after the Luftwaffe was all but neutered? At least in Europe, you aren't swimming with the sharks if you're unlucky enough to get a bullet in the radiator (or insert other vital aircraft part that forces you to ditch).

US Pilots pretty much adopted the practice globally, the British did to an extent. The Japanese may not have, can't really find any info on them either way. But the Allies would if targets presented themselves.

As far as a flak trap, I can set one of those up now. In fact I do at every base I think my opponent might like to attack, we all do it already.

And a sweep and strafe toggle in the orders would leave the decision completely up to each player. So you might get flak trapped, but the easy fix would be to turn it to regular sweep instead of 'sweep and strafe'.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 10

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/11/2009 4:33:34 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IndyShark

I just finished the GDL scenario and I noticed a few things that I think can be improved or fixed. Here are my thoughts. I would welcome any comments

1. ASW (air and surface) is too weak. - I have multiple ASW task forces and tons of bombers set to ASW and I can't seem to kill any Japanese subs. I have damaged many subs, but only sunk 2 in six months. I have lost more 8 ships in ASW missions to subs! I think the ships and planes need to be more effective against the subs.

Disagree. I do get hits on subs, damage some, sink some, AND they are hard to hit, hard to kill. Seems like subs are the appropriate PITA now.

quote:

2. Port Attack is ineffective - I think this is a gameplay issue, but I can't seem to damage ports or ships in the port. Air attacks need to be more effective

I am having success with port attacks.

quote:

5. Fighter Escort is ineffective. My fighters can't seem to escort bombers very well. They take about as many losses as they inflict. I would expect the enemy fighters to try to get to the bombers and take more losses doing so especially when the fighter escort has an altitude advantage.

The mix of escort and sweep seems to work fine. Escort mission is harder on the escort fighters, but my understanding is that it should be a harder mission. AE team covered this earlier - escort is close escort which ties the fighters to the bombers and results in higher escort fighter losses due to less chance to maneuver. Sweep represents both loose escort and sweep activities.

quote:

6. Training is too slow. I have groups on training for 5 or 6 months that can't do anything well.

I see the same problem.

quote:

10. Twin Engine bombers with the strafer modification are useless. I can't seem to damage or sink anything with these planes (A20 & B25) even when I train them to do so for months.

I am getting some 75mm hits with B-25's so equipped.

(in reply to IndyShark)

Post #: 11

RE: AE Improvement Suggestions - 10/12/2009 1:34:34 AM

Sonny II

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

As far as a flak trap, I can set one of those up now. In fact I do at every base I think my opponent might like to attack, we all do it already.

Doesn't work against sweeps - only on base attacks.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 12