Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The tojo as uber.....

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: The tojo as uber..... Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 9:37:48 PM   
jwilkerson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It seems to me that your test conditions listed below are rock solid for establishing a baseline. However, after establishing that baseline, how can one know what the effects of different aircraft ratings in different categories will be - unless one starts to throw in those different stats systematically?


Yup that is exactly what one would do!

==

It might actually be of some use to discuss the path I followed a few years back. Note this was with WITP not AE.

I wanted to know which factors where "high leverage" in air to air combat and which were not. In other words I wanted to know which factors - if changed a little - would make a big difference to the results - and which would not. So I set off down the road of making a sand box.

Well I made my first sand box and the results were asymmetrical - meaning given that most things were the same on both sides - I was not getting "flat" results. For some reason, the attacker (the sweeper) was always winning by somewhere between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1. So I assumed my sand box was still not completely neutral with respect to some key variables and so I made some more things the same. The results were still assymmetrical - and I made some more things the same. But now, everything was the same as per my above post - and still the results were asymmetrical - the attacker always won by between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1.

So we went and looked in the code - and holy cow - we found the "sweep bonus". Basically a 3 to 2 chance that the sweeper will get the bounce! This factor was the single most important factor in air to air combat in WITP and probably still is in AE.

Once we figured that out, I went back to testing and starting varying things like firepower, durability, experience and maneuver. And IIRC, that was about the order of importance. Small changes in firepower were important, but larger and larger changes were needed in durability, experience and finallly maneuverability in order to dramatically influence the results.

Interestingly, I know that what many WITPers called the "Zero Bonus" was really the "Sweep Bonus". Someone actually did some exhausive testing (can't recall who) that proved the "Zero Bonus" made almost no difference. But, Zeros flying sweeps will win big time in WITP - thought that is because they are flying sweeps - not because of the "Zero Bonus".

So one possible explanation for loopsided results in AE is still the sweep bonus. If you think you are seeing loopsided results, try reversing the combat and let the "uber plane" be on CAP and the "nada-uber plane" sweep and see if the "uber effects" are taken down a notch.

Another key factor is/was the detection of the incomming raid. In WITP there was a mid-war allied "radar bonus" which dramatically increased Allied fighters on CAP getting the bounce. In AE this is replaced with both sides being more likely to scramble more fighters based on detection of the incomming raid. But over time, in AE, this will result in a significant Allied advantage as they have lots more and lots better radars.

Another factor that seems to matter a lot in AE though I have not done exhaustive testing on it - is range. It seems that there is a big range attenuation factor for fighters - so either on sweep or escort - it seems like fighters flying farther and farther - do less and less well. I've seen P-38s sweeping get clobbered by Oscars on CAP if the P-38s are flying super long range missions.

So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 121
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 9:51:55 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 122
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 9:58:36 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It seems to me that your test conditions listed below are rock solid for establishing a baseline. However, after establishing that baseline, how can one know what the effects of different aircraft ratings in different categories will be - unless one starts to throw in those different stats systematically?


Yup that is exactly what one would do!

==

Well that's reassuring to know! LOL!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
....

Interestingly, I know that what many WITPers called the "Zero Bonus" was really the "Sweep Bonus". Someone actually did some exhausive testing (can't recall who) that proved the "Zero Bonus" made almost no difference.
....



That was ME! LOL!

B

< Message edited by Big B -- 3/6/2010 9:59:02 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 123
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 10:08:23 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
So BigB will you be testing it so this idea of UBER Bounce dies once and for all ?

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 124
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 10:17:38 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Whew... well, my initial response is - NOT A CHANCE!...that was time consuming and a lot of work the last time ...(wink ).

On the other hand, I admit to grousing about doing another mod for AE - with Air Combat as the initial centerpiece(my own irrational mania)...so maybe.

It's just that after modding WitP, and helping out with AE - I'm just so darned drained.


B
quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

So BigB will you be testing it so this idea of UBER Bounce dies once and for all ?


(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 125
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 10:49:25 PM   
jwilkerson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.



Not sure how your sentences have any relation to my sentences as you seem to be talking about altitude - and I'm not.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 126
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 10:55:54 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline


_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 127
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/6/2010 11:16:16 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Spending most of my time with my wife and son playing "Age of Mythology" (she likes that game) and "Combat Mission: North Africa"...I'm a sucker for tank battles in the desert....

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 128
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 6:32:24 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.



Not sure how your sentences have any relation to my sentences as you seem to be talking about altitude - and I'm not.



Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude..., and I can't figure out why if the higher side is getting "the bounce", they aren't having to come down to the lower sides altitude to do it. Why is the CAP climbing to the "sweeps" altitude? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 129
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 7:27:43 AM   
Shark7


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.



Not sure how your sentences have any relation to my sentences as you seem to be talking about altitude - and I'm not.



Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude..., and I can't figure out why if the higher side is getting "the bounce", they aren't having to come down to the lower sides altitude to do it. Why is the CAP climbing to the "sweeps" altitude? Shouldn't it be the other way around?



With WWII radar being what it was...primitive, likely the best you got was a large incoming raid of unknown aircraft. The ground controllers very well might send up at least one element of the CAP to check it out. That would explain at least part of the CAP aircraft climbing up to meet the raid. The rest of the CAP may or may not choose to climb to engage though.

You can't think in terms of modern radar. In WWII, they might not be able to define exactly what was incoming, only that it was incoming. Basically, there would be a ground radar detection and you might not know if it was fighters or bombers. You might not want to climb up to engage fighters, but you also don't want to let bombers get through unmolested. I'm not convinced you'd want to keep sending the CAP up to engage once you determine there were no bombers though.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 130
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 9:47:32 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.



Not sure how your sentences have any relation to my sentences as you seem to be talking about altitude - and I'm not.



Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude..., and I can't figure out why if the higher side is getting "the bounce", they aren't having to come down to the lower sides altitude to do it. Why is the CAP climbing to the "sweeps" altitude? Shouldn't it be the other way around?



With WWII radar being what it was...primitive, likely the best you got was a large incoming raid of unknown aircraft. The ground controllers very well might send up at least one element of the CAP to check it out. That would explain at least part of the CAP aircraft climbing up to meet the raid. The rest of the CAP may or may not choose to climb to engage though.

You can't think in terms of modern radar. In WWII, they might not be able to define exactly what was incoming, only that it was incoming. Basically, there would be a ground radar detection and you might not know if it was fighters or bombers. You might not want to climb up to engage fighters, but you also don't want to let bombers get through unmolested. I'm not convinced you'd want to keep sending the CAP up to engage once you determine there were no bombers though.



Understand your point, Shark..., but my question concerned "the bounce" or "surprise" or "altitude advantage" or whatever you want to call it. The implication is that one side has an advantage over the other and can dive down on it's opponent.

If one side has surprise, it shouldn't matter if they are diving from above or coming up from beneath and behind. But the game only seems to reward altitude. What's worse, when the higher side has the bounce/surprise, the lower side (who is supposedly being surprised) still climbs to meet them (even though they don't know they are there).

I don't have a problem with side at superior altitude having an advantage in getting "the bounce" (unless the altitude is so superior that they can't see the lower side. Clouds and all, you know.) But if they have "the bounce", they should have to descend to the lower side's altitude to use it. It just makes sense.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 131
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 1:28:15 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

I have not said much because it seems like I am playing a different game. This is all anecdotal instead of a formal test, but here is my recent (PBEM) experience with sweeps and Tojos

My game has reached (at least temporerily) a state of equilibrium in late July 42. There are three Allied airbases with varying numbers of P40E's and Hurricanes within range of seven Japanese bases with (until recently) Oscar 1c's. As the Japanese, I have been running between two and seven sweeps per day against one or more of these Allied bases. I have sent in the sweeps at 15k, 20k, 25k and 30k and sometimes all of them at the same time. The Japanese fighter pilots are mostly 50-72 air skill and 50-70 experience (I try to fill losses with vets from the reserve but sometimes have to add a rookie or two). I don't know the Allied skill levels, but I suspect that they are about the same or higher since my opponent has the majority of his units in training due to the usual Allied early-war shortage of airframes. Recently he has added seveal F4F units and a single P38. For the last three weeks there have been at least two sweeps per day. The result has been ... average. the usual result is I lose two, he loses one then I lose 1 and he loses three then I lose three and he loses two and repeat.

After reading this thread, I was eagerly anticipating the Tojo rout. I carefully brought up my pre-production Tojo unit and two new units fresh from five months of training and then Tojo conversion. I launched all three at 30k feet, one at each of the target airbases. Just to make sure, I also keep up the pressure with sweeps from seven Oscar units as well. After three days of intense fighting the results have been ... just the same as before. In Tojo combat I lost 12 and destroyed 14 while losing 38 Oscars who destroyed 28 allied aircraft. These were the A2A results; when I include ops losses I came off considerable worse- just like the previous three weeks. At this point I am back to rest mode while I wait for replacement a/c and fresh pilots

So in 24 days of combat with somewhere between two and nine sweeps per day at altitudes between 15k and 30k (and with the average above 25k) I never achieved better than a 7:2 kill ratio with a single sweep. Now it may be significant that the largest sweep was less than 20 a/c and most were between five and 10 a/c; the defenders were usually 30-40 but quite often they were outnumbered when the fight started, the rest joining later.

As I say, certainly not controlled testing. However it is a large number of individual fights. And yes, I do feel that I am losing the battle




IMO you need more (many more) fighters in your single sweeps and preferrable all of them above your opponent´s fighters. If you keep diving on them you will get "nice" results in your game. Not the realistic ones you quoted but good result for your side in your game.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/7/2010 1:33:23 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 132
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 5:58:32 PM   
jwilkerson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude...




Are you sure?

Regardless - starting a new line of thought based on an unrelated group of sentences is kind of like saying "one plus one is two - therefore we are going to Florida!" You can talk about altitude - but it just doesn't make sense to start off by quoting a group of sentences that are not talking about altitude.

BTW, aren't you going to Florida yet!!!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 133
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 6:24:18 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.



Not sure how your sentences have any relation to my sentences as you seem to be talking about altitude - and I'm not.



Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude..., and I can't figure out why if the higher side is getting "the bounce", they aren't having to come down to the lower sides altitude to do it. Why is the CAP climbing to the "sweeps" altitude? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


It depends. If the CAP can't get to the Sweep (which it will try), then the Sweep will come down. Unless the CAP AC have long Early detection time (radar), and a superior rate of climb, or the Sweep fumbles it's detection of the CAP, then the CAP will likely be at a disadvantage.

Short of a Doctrine system we will continue to see CAPs attempt to engage in combat. Sorry, but that is more representative than fleeing at the mere sight of an enemy formation above you. I acknowledge that fleeing was a valid tactic over Port Moresby in Early '42, but like I said our little 1s and 0s, and most aggressive RW fighter leaders seek combat, though they always prefer it at an advantage. If they didn't in AE this thread would be about how "my CAP is ineffective and never engages the enemy...".

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 134
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 6:29:39 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

"So, at least based on my experience in AE, if you want your fighters to win, then fly short ranged sweeps or get your opponent to fly long ranged ones and have lots of firepower and durability. And if you're on CAP, have lots of long range radar! A bit of experience won't hurt. "

Which seems kinda strange, as when units swept each others bases, they generally seem to have come in at treetop level to avoid being spotted until they burst into view over the airfield straffing.   The whole "I can fly higher than you can" just seems silly.  Who cares if your fighters want to dunce around 7 miles above me?  When they come down low enough to actually see me, or be a threat to me, then I'll worry about it.



Not sure how your sentences have any relation to my sentences as you seem to be talking about altitude - and I'm not.



Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude..., and I can't figure out why if the higher side is getting "the bounce", they aren't having to come down to the lower sides altitude to do it. Why is the CAP climbing to the "sweeps" altitude? Shouldn't it be the other way around?



With WWII radar being what it was...primitive, likely the best you got was a large incoming raid of unknown aircraft. The ground controllers very well might send up at least one element of the CAP to check it out. That would explain at least part of the CAP aircraft climbing up to meet the raid. The rest of the CAP may or may not choose to climb to engage though.

You can't think in terms of modern radar. In WWII, they might not be able to define exactly what was incoming, only that it was incoming. Basically, there would be a ground radar detection and you might not know if it was fighters or bombers. You might not want to climb up to engage fighters, but you also don't want to let bombers get through unmolested. I'm not convinced you'd want to keep sending the CAP up to engage once you determine there were no bombers though.



Understand your point, Shark..., but my question concerned "the bounce" or "surprise" or "altitude advantage" or whatever you want to call it. The implication is that one side has an advantage over the other and can dive down on it's opponent.

If one side has surprise, it shouldn't matter if they are diving from above or coming up from beneath and behind. But the game only seems to reward altitude. What's worse, when the higher side has the bounce/surprise, the lower side (who is supposedly being surprised) still climbs to meet them (even though they don't know they are there).

I don't have a problem with side at superior altitude having an advantage in getting "the bounce" (unless the altitude is so superior that they can't see the lower side. Clouds and all, you know.) But if they have "the bounce", they should have to descend to the lower side's altitude to use it. It just makes sense.

Bounce is not directly representative of an altitude advantage. Bounce implies surprise. Use your imagination as to how many different ways you can surprise your opponent, and it doesn't have to be with an altitude or energy advantage. There are varying degrees of bounces.

That said, Having an altitude advantage does increase the likelihood of a bounce occurring, as the most favorable potion to achieve a bounce is from above and unobserved.

Altitude advantage is a separate bonus that essentially modifies MVR values for at least the first round of combat and in some cases more, depending on Pilot EXP and several rolls. This advantage can be prolonged or fumbled, but in cases where it works in concert with a BOUNCE it can be extremely deadly. This concept is not unprecedented in history.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 135
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 6:30:08 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Because the game rewards "sweeps" made at max altitude...




Are you sure?

Regardless - starting a new line of thought based on an unrelated group of sentences is kind of like saying "one plus one is two - therefore we are going to Florida!" You can talk about altitude - but it just doesn't make sense to start off by quoting a group of sentences that are not talking about altitude.

BTW, aren't you going to Florida yet!!!


I am going to Florida....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 136
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 7:27:39 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Bounce implies surprise. Use your imagination as to how many different ways you can surprise your opponent, and it doesn't have to be with an altitude or energy advantage. There are varying degrees of bounces.

That said, Having an altitude advantage does increase the likelihood of a bounce occurring, as the most favorable potion to achieve a bounce is from above and unobserved.

Altitude advantage is a separate bonus that essentially modifies MVR values for at least the first round of combat and in some cases more, depending on Pilot EXP and several rolls. This advantage can be prolonged or fumbled, but in cases where it works in concert with a BOUNCE it can be extremely deadly. This concept is not unprecedented in history.



Believe I said that, Elf. But if "bounce" implies "surprise", and the side gaining the "bounce" is at a higher altitude, shouldn't they be coming down to take advantage of the "surprise". It still makes no sense for the side being "surprised" to have to climb to meet the attacker when they don't know the attacker is there (they're being surprised, right?).

If you spot the enemy, and he doesn't see you, you close in to take advantage of it don't you? If he's above you, you try to come up from below and behind to keep him from spotting you until you are in position to attack; and if you are above him you try to put yourself between your target and the sun and dive on him. When the side with the altitude advantage starts the combat, shouldn't it take place at the altitude of the defender? Why should he get the advantage of having the combat take place at his chosen altitude instead of that of the A/C he's attacking by diving on them?

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 137
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 7:34:49 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
Nice Avatar Elf

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 138
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 8:04:22 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Bounce implies surprise. Use your imagination as to how many different ways you can surprise your opponent, and it doesn't have to be with an altitude or energy advantage. There are varying degrees of bounces.

That said, Having an altitude advantage does increase the likelihood of a bounce occurring, as the most favorable potion to achieve a bounce is from above and unobserved.

Altitude advantage is a separate bonus that essentially modifies MVR values for at least the first round of combat and in some cases more, depending on Pilot EXP and several rolls. This advantage can be prolonged or fumbled, but in cases where it works in concert with a BOUNCE it can be extremely deadly. This concept is not unprecedented in history.



Believe I said that, Elf. But if "bounce" implies "surprise", and the side gaining the "bounce" is at a higher altitude, shouldn't they be coming down to take advantage of the "surprise". It still makes no sense for the side being "surprised" to have to climb to meet the attacker when they don't know the attacker is there (they're being surprised, right?).

If you spot the enemy, and he doesn't see you, you close in to take advantage of it don't you? If he's above you, you try to come up from below and behind to keep him from spotting you until you are in position to attack; and if you are above him you try to put yourself between your target and the sun and dive on him. When the side with the altitude advantage starts the combat, shouldn't it take place at the altitude of the defender? Why should he get the advantage of having the combat take place at his chosen altitude instead of that of the A/C he's attacking by diving on them?


You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 139
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 8:17:28 PM   
jwilkerson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I am going to Florida....


Well then, it must be true that one plus one is greater than two!!!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 140
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 9:00:19 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Wow, I did not even realize that my thread had been moved.

Well, Ark has only run a few tests and we really need to go further into the game.

First let my say that there is only a little historical basis to go on here. The tojo fighter actually only fought the P 40 for a brief time in Burma. I believe it was the 23rd squadron that faced tojos before they upgraded to mustangs. From what I have seen the Allied pilots were intially surprised by the tojo fighter because it was a plane that countered the standard tactics for fighting Japanese fighters. That is, the tojo could fight in the verticle (boom and zoom) vs the P 40 and gave the Allied pilots a good fight. However it was the other defects of the tojo that don't show up on paper so much that made it only about equal to the P 40. That is, poor handling, easy to stall and spin, weaker armament and lack of armor. Frankly, I stand by what I say. It was not a very popular plane and was eventually phased out of production. However, our game works on a simpler plain and looks at maneuverabilty, and speed as the most important factors. In that respect, in game terms the tojo is better and seems to dominate the P-40. Historically, it probably was no more than an equal match for the P 40.

However, our battle was only a single event and we have not had too many tojo vs allied fighter fights to really form a conclusion. As Ark says he had superior pilots but mine were still pretty good. I have good leaders as well but I moved my fighters before the fight so perhas the little fatigue they had (average 7). It will just need to be tested more. Right now, I suspect that the tojo is superior and I will come back and report when we have had more fights. And, Ark tells me he is making about 200 tojos a month in July of 42, (cursed damn scenario #2 ), so with my own pitiful fighter replacement rate I will be fighting at a disadvantage for a little while longer. So be it.

In addtion, I don't think many would argue againt my statement that high altitude sweep is too deadly and kind of whacks out air combat. We have all seen enough of that. Perhaps a HR that limits sweeping and CAP fighters to their best perfomance altitude will suffice. However that might create problems for those defending against players who like to fly bombers way up high. So who knows.

In my own opinion, I would like to say that altitude advantage and "bounce" are two different things entirely. Bounce means surprise and yes I agree, altitude sometimes gave the bounce. However with a separation of 15,000 feet, and good situational awareness from the lower flying aircraft, then there would not have been much of chance of a bounce. The early zero fighter had a top diving speed of less than 400 MPH, Oscar may have been less. Any higher speed and the zero tended to shed its wings. Early model Tojos seemed to have a top diving speed of about 460 MPH. All three Japanese figherts suffered from serious control problems at high speed. A P40 could dive away and quickly be diving at 500 MPH and still had excellent control at high speeds-especially roll. There were other factors as well. Usually, there were clouds to escape into, or haze, so a 10,000 foot advantage may not have been much of an advangtage at all. In fact, in actual combat for a Japanese aircraft, a 1000 to 2000 foot height advantage might have been better for the bounce opportunity.


Anyways, I think it is important for the game to be tweaked so that players are rewarded for using their aircraft at the proper altitudes. For 1st generation fighters, it should be not more than 20,000 feet. As an example, the P40 had a max service ceiling of about 29,000 ft. Well, that happens to be about the same height as Mount Everest. Think of the impact of flying a early war fighter at that height. First, it would be near impossible to control, I don't think any fighter of that generation was pressurized, cold and fatigue would be extreme, oxygen equipment would have to be excellent, and formation flying would be virtually impossible as the slightest tweak in your stick would cause a quick elevation drop of thousands of feet due to the thin air. These fighters just were not meant to fly or fight that high.

Perhaps a solution is to just limit all aircraft to a realistic combat ceiling and not even have max service ceilings in the game. Only the finest (test pilots) ever flew that high anyways.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 141
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 9:11:03 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
To answer the OP question. The reason the Tojo seems uber is that it has a better armaments than all early war IJ Fighters except perhaps the Zero, and even that is debatable depending on how you feel about the Zeke's 20mm, and it flies like and American design, that is to say it is more and energy fighter than a Turner like the Zeke and Oscar, yet it retains better MVR than the typical US P-40 due to it's unique butterfly flap design. So it really is a well rounded fighter, particularly as the code views it. It's top speed and better than Average MVR values are helpful in the code. And it was no slouch IRL.

It was not produced in greater numbers for some of the usual reasons, too much tinkering, a failing industrial complex, in that it could not support mass producing ALL the designs that were out there, and if memory serves, it was overcoming a stigma amongst pilots that said it was difficult to fly, lacked the MVR of the Zeke and Oscar, and tended to kill inexperienced pilots. Those who got to know the AC and it's strengths loved it, but they were too few and far between. Besides other designs were coming that would eat the Shoki's lunch (Ki-84) and the political will was not behind it...

Given a choice as a pilot, between the Shoki, Oscar, Zeke, and even the early Tony I would lean toward the Ki-44 Shoki.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 142
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 9:15:46 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton



In my own opinion, I would like to say that altitude advantage and "bounce" are two different things entirely. Bounce means surprise and yes I agree, altitude sometimes gave the bounce. However with a separation of 15,000 feet, and good situational awareness from the lower flying aircraft, then there would not have been much of chance of a bounce. The early zero fighter had a top diving speed of less than 400 MPH, Oscar may have been less. Any higher speed and the zero tended to shed its wings. Early model Tojos seemed to have a top diving speed of about 460 MPH. All three Japanese figherts suffered from serious control problems at high speed. A P40 could dive away and quickly be diving at 500 MPH and still had excellent control at high speeds-especially roll. There were other factors as well. Usually, there were clouds to escape into, or haze, so a 10,000 foot advantage may not have been much of an advangtage at all. In fact, in actual combat for a Japanese aircraft, a 1000 to 2000 foot height advantage might have been better for the bounce opportunity.



I mostly agree with the above Para, save for the bolded part. The P-40 did Not have excellent control above 400mph in a dive. It took a full boot of rudder to overcome the torque and made gunnery difficult. I would say it had better control, and better roll rates than contemporary IJ designs, but by no means "excellent"....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 143
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 9:21:11 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Nice Avatar Elf

thanks, made it myself...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 144
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 9:43:41 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
A warrior and an artist.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 145
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 10:25:09 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.


So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 146
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 10:41:00 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.


So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...



Seems a bit presumptuous on your part, Mike, that this is the reason the code was not changed. Do you have any idea what amount of work might have been involved in changing this code? Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 147
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 10:51:15 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.


So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...



Seems a bit presumptuous on your part, Mike, that this is the reason the code was not changed. Do you have any idea what amount of work might have been involved in changing this code? Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it.

That's all right USS America, I am quite used to Mike's pointing out flaws without offering any constructive solutions...

And as along standing Beta tester and member of the AE team the fact that this issue wasn't addressed prior to release is as much his fault as it was anyone else's. Fortunately, now that the development phase is over Mike still has the public forum with which he can throw spears at the designers while the community gets to sit back and watch....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 148
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/7/2010 11:00:23 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
Then, green button it is.  

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 149
RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 12:18:20 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it.



I've walked several miles right along with the rest of the team during a year and a half of beta testing. And apparently I do know something about the subject as even the Elf said I was correct about the way the programming dealt with this situation. And you are right..., I don't have to like it. But I have the God-given to be "disappointed" that it seems nothing can or will be done about it..., and that the best reason we have for it is "it's always been that way". It's a "disappointing" answer..., even if it's true.

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: The tojo as uber..... Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.688