Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'd like to second RobBrennan's comments.

I have no problem disagreeing with people or having them disagree with me but going around calling people "brown nosers" for having an opinion which just happens to disagree with yours and be the same as the Matrix opinion is a very low standard.

By the same token just a day ago Terminus' response to a complain was to simply post "Moron" so it goes both ways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

yep, name calling will see this shut right down..
I do not think anyone can argue the a2a model works as advertized... well they can argue but really whats the point? A2a is certainly one of several flies in the ointment, BUT notthe only one... give this a year and Patch 5 or 6 will probably be the addition of a new a2a model.. followed in a few years by the final version of witp giving us the ability to have statistical anallysys on every battle.. linked to those in the database giving us "in theory the most accurate game ever, but probably coming back to stronger faster planes shootong down weaker slower planes.. oh wait thats what happened in reality!~

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Thats just it, there won't be any later stages. The game will be over. Japs win! Again I ask If "ANYONE" played into the later stages(pbem) as the allies and seen real world results for the allies in the game. All the players do here is throw up -"Look at what we get in 1944".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

As a non english-native speaking person, I have a question: "bounce", here, means just "surprise the enemy"?. Or "make a first surprise pass"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

As a non english-native speaking person, I have a question: "bounce", here, means just "surprise the enemy"?. Or "make a first surprise pass"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

Ok, it's clear now. I get the rest of the conversation, but the meaning of "bouncing" here just confused me, because I cannot imagine a squadron bouncing another one in the "usual" meaning...

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Iīm sure both forums still are one of the most civilized forums on the net

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7





Yeah, in this instance the bounce is more akin to the tactic of 'diving out of the sun' such as used by the AVG against the Japanese over China. The AVG is a very good example of a mediocre aircraft (P-40C) using superior tactics to gain the advantage. Unfortunately the game doesn't seem to model this well (or rather models it too well).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Iīm sure both forums still are one of the most civilized forums on the net

Very sad, but probably true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

castor troy, decrying the other as childish and then retreating to the level of "he started it" really establishes a low base of behaviour.

I see you've decided to continue the discussion in this thread - which isn't going to get anyone rational and adult to join in or take you seriously.

Goodbye, if you reflect and see some sense and have a fresh, rational start in a new thread I may contribute further. I think others might consider taking the same stance, it is probably the best chance for the many to hold the line against unseemly behaviour.


And just in case anyone decides to go asking who I am to be posting "sage" advice... Someone who would have joined in in this particular furball with relish a few years ago but, thankfully, we all have the capacity to learn, even castor troy ( and I ). IOW no special qualifications or anything just, I hope, a little bit of common sense ( although probably not enough )

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Iīm sure both forums still are one of the most civilized forums on the net

Very sad, but probably true.

Why is this sad? Wonna more work as a moderator?

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

The Wildcat was not well suited for the fight at Guadalcanal. It had a bunch of weight in the back that we could have dispensed with very nicely. It was beefed up for carrier landings in the rear and we didn't need it. But there wasn't anything to be done in that regard. So because of this we'd work like hell to climb to 23,000-24,000 feet. At that altitude when you make a turn you lose 1,000 feet, and it's very easy to stall out. In theory the F4F had a higher service ceiling but not in practice. You'd look up there and there sit the Japs at 30,000 looking right down your gazoo. A real fun time. You couldn't get that bird much higher than 24,000: not you, not Jesus, nobody. The bird wouldn't go any higher.

- Roger Haberman, VMF-121 Vet. as quoted in Fire in the Sky

Zeke vs. Wildcat debate aside, some aircraft can just fly higher. If that isn't working in your favor, try a new tactic. That is the point of this game, to provide you, the player with the same challenges as the real Commanders. If your opponent is using a performance advantage against you, then seek an advantage of your own to counter it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankE

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

The Wildcat was not well suited for the fight at Guadalcanal. It had a bunch of weight in the back that we could have dispensed with very nicely. It was beefed up for carrier landings in the rear and we didn't need it. But there wasn't anything to be done in that regard. So because of this we'd work like hell to climb to 23,000-24,000 feet. At that altitude when you make a turn you lose 1,000 feet, and it's very easy to stall out. In theory the F4F had a higher service ceiling but not in practice. You'd look up there and there sit the Japs at 30,000 looking right down your gazoo. A real fun time. You couldn't get that bird much higher than 24,000: not you, not Jesus, nobody. The bird wouldn't go any higher.

- Roger Haberman, VMF-121 Vet. as quoted in Fire in the Sky

Zeke vs. Wildcat debate aside, some aircraft can just fly higher. If that isn't working in your favor, try a new tactic. That is the point of this game, to provide you, the player with the same challenges as the real Commanders. If your opponent is using a performance advantage against you, then seek an advantage of your own to counter it.

And yet,for a variety of reasons that aren't modeled in the game, in real life all fighter sweeps weren't conducted at maximum altitude. But that's the best tactic in AE. The same goes for CAP, there are reasons that CAP was layered at different altitudes but it's just silly to do that in AE.

IMO, a couple of relatively simple changes would go a long way towards getting more realistic air combat in AE.

1) If the altitude difference (between sweep/CAP and CAP/bombers) is greater than 10K, chances of an intercept occuring is reduced drastically. The bigger the altitude difference, the smaller the chance. Chance of intercept is increased with better radar.

2) If a sweep is conducted at an altitude higher than the max altitude of the CAP planes, any CAP that doesn't have a commander with a very high aggressiveness should have a good chance of declining combat altogether.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

In real life altitude was a critical factor in Air Combat. Yeah they didn't ALWAYS fly at there Max ceiling, but they did fly at higher relative altitudes than their opponenets if the performance of their crate allowed it. The fact that players choose to fly their AC at such high altitudes isn't up to me to decide, it's up to the players. If you are losing, cuz your Defenders are at a performance deficit then you have lost the strategic initiative. Just like anything else, it'll come full circle and the shoe will be on the other foot.

Declining combat and what? Getting away scott free?

Can you imagine the uproar, (from both sides) when combat never occurs? Next thing you know Players who see their sweeps become utterly useless will whine and moan that their High alt sweeps are ineffective against lower ceiling CAPs because they flee and avoid combat, and that CAPs composed of Higher Ceiling defenders negate their offensive advantage with radar, and force their AC to flee. Then everyone will wank that A2A combat NEVER occurs because any side that finds itself at a disadvantage avoids combat altogether.

Where would you draw the line? When you, and only you have the advantage?

quote:


And yet,for a variety of reasons that aren't modeled in the game, in real life all fighter sweeps weren't conducted at maximum altitude. But that's the best tactic in AE. The same goes for CAP, there are reasons that CAP was layered at different altitudes but it's just silly to do that in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

In real life altitude was a critical factor in Air Combat. Yeah they didn't ALWAYS fly at there Max ceiling, but they did fly at higher relative altitudes than their opponents if the performance of their crate allowed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
The fact that choose to fly their AC at such high altitudes isn't up to me to decide, it's up to the players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
If you are losing, cuz your Defenders are at a performance deficit then you have lost the strategic initiative. Just like anything else, it'll come full circle and the shoe will be on the other foot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Declining combat and what? Getting away scott free?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Where would you draw the line? When you, and only you have the advantage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:


And yet,for a variety of reasons that aren't modeled in the game, in real life all fighter sweeps weren't conducted at maximum altitude. But that's the best tactic in AE. The same goes for CAP, there are reasons that CAP was layered at different altitudes but it's just silly to do that in AE.

I disagree with this somewhat , i find layered CAP can work against high sweeps depending on which CAP planes the sweep goes for 1st. EG.. P39's at 10k get bounced by zeros flying high(with no altitude data in the combat replays it's impossible to confirm the following, just my gut instsinct ) it seems the sweep planes and CAP try and close but planes will always dive faster than those climbing (esp the crummy P39's) .. so combat occurs between the 2 altitude settings , sake of argument lets assume they meet at 15k. As you all know CAP tends to dribble in from multiple patrols forming up so your CAP P40's set at 19k finally arrive and get the bounce on the Zeros at 15k where they have battered the P39's. the allies won't win this battle , but then again they shouldnt. Lets assume 6 P39's shot down and several more damaged (these planes do seem to take a bit of killing so the pilots can survive quite often) , the P40's kill 3 Zeros and damage several more while losing 4 of their own to the japanese fight back when the furball forms up after the P40 bounce. Given that japanese planes are notorious for falling apart in a light breeze a lot of damaged planes wont get home , this means the allies actually 'win' on pilot losses. In the long run (like the real war) pilot quality is like gold dust. If you can preserve your own and kill the enemys you win long term.

there is always the chance that the Zeros bounce the P40's 1st however then the allies do get plastered. But the more alt bands you use on defensive CAP the more chance the highest groups won't get hit 1st so you get some payback eventually.

I have used this in a PBEM guad scenario and it works for me (sometimes) eventually the japanese just stopped sweping as thier losses were unacceptable after a while. Some caveats here though , dont fight Sweeps unless you have to and don't do it with inferior numbers either.

Also unless you actually watch the animation you just cant see whats really happened as the combat reports are so way off in numbers as to be virtually useless unless the combat is completely one sided.

Diclaimer - , this is just one persons opinion and experiemce with the game not a magic how to defeat sweeps rule. so please don't harrangue me personally. I am always open to new ideas and others experiences however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

There has been a lot of talk about an altitude advantage being decisive. Yet, to date, I haven't seen any data to indicate that this talk is indicative of real "in game" results.

Both before and after game release - there have been a few people talking about this. Before release I did some sand box testing and could not establish any decisive results with altitude advantage. In order to run a good sand box test of a given factor, one must rule out all other factors, or at least as many other factors as possible. In establishing the existence of the "sweep bonus" years ago in WITP - I got practiced at creating a good air to air sand box. Roughly it includes these elements.

01 - The planes used should be identical on both sides.
02 - All pilots and leaders should be identical on both sides.
03 - The air bases used should be identical on both sides.
04 - All supporting land units and leaders of land units should be identical on both sides.
05 - Just to be sure - run all tests in both directions with identical settings.
06 - Some effects may be date dependent so running tests with different dates may be indicated depending on what you are hunting for.

The above is the procedure I use when doing air to air testing. I did do this before release for altitude and sweep bonuses and found nothing unexpected. Experience, firepower and durability were still the "high leverage" attributes determining the outcome. Maneuver has always been a relatively low impact factor. Air warning also matters - probably more in AE than in WITP.

If someone wants to perform some testing roughly like the above and post the results - I'm sure we would all be interested. But until we have some good data - we are just chatting here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I just sent the file to Ark and we are going to run the turn over a few times with different settings. We will run the turn with the same settings a time or two to see if the outcome varies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I just sent the file to Ark and we are going to run the turn over a few times with different settings. We will run the turn with the same settings a time or two to see if the outcome varies.

Does anybody remember the beginning of this thread?
We were both staring with amazement at the results of the encounter over the skies in North Australia.
Crsutton maintaned that the "Tojo uber" results stem from high altitude sweep.
As quoted, we did a test on the same file, but this time Tojos were sent sweepeing at the same altitude as defending Allied fighters. Every other conditions (numbers, commanders, etc.) were similar to the initial turn results.
Here are the results:

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet. (CR always shows higher altitute in this place, my fighters were really sent at 14 kFeet, if they go through the CAP, there's info at the end, but, even when receiving such a good ratio, Japanese fighters were all forced to retreat)
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 42

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk IA x 10
P-40E Warhawk x 57

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk IA: 2 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 14 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.75 Sqn RAAF with Kittyhawk IA (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Raid is overhead
49th FG/7th FS with P-40E Warhawk (14 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
14 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Raid is overhead
49th FG/8th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 15 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
49th FG/9th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 13 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
28th CG/11th FS with P-40E Warhawk (15 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
15 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Raid is overhead

I can now say that this success is not because of the advantageous (some say, gamey) high altitude sweep (as it was suggested).
Tojos are just marvellous fighters in AE, when backed up by great commander, good quality pilots, low fatigue... etc.
I am glad it works this way and see no issue here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius
But what is it that makes the Tojo so good? In comparison to the Oscar it would seem to be the weaker fighter. Less max alt, lessmanoeuvrability, worse arnament (more guns but the 7.7's appear to be useless and the 13.2mm's are Front mounted instead of the Center mounted Oscar Variant, making them less accurate)