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: Cancelling the Tony Program

 
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: Cancelling the Tony Program Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 1:36:04 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Is the altitute advantage a bonus and should be important? IMHO, yes, it is OK that dive from the sun with height advantage result in surprise... hmmm... but maybe... let's use the bands some more? Make the combat to happen in bands?


Well, it would be nice, but presumably that would be a major rework.

I'm not sure how diving works exactly, castor troy's stuff seems to make out that its some sort of setting, like you have a dive combat round and at some point the combat round ends. So if you have equal numbers on both sides the "dive round" seems to end fairly quickly, before massacre ensues.

Either making the dive round always end after a certain number of attacks, or making the dive bonus not so major as it is now, would keep the existing system and hopefully be just a matter of tweaking a few variables.

That alone would be a big improvement. Ideally it'd be cool if you had squadrons unable to engage (or able to engage only after the bombers have dropped) if the altitudes are very disparate, but I guess that'd be more work and to be honest, fixing the Stratosphere Massacre would be enough to radically improve the game for hopefully a minimum amount of work.

And at this late hour a 'minimum amount of work' is probably a key requirement if it is ever going to be implemented.


_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 61
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 2:25:13 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

{ahem} getting back to the original thread topic, don't 4get the Ki100 which was probably the best and ultimate development of the Tony airframe but hastily married to a decent radial engine, the Ha-112, after the bombing & destruction of the only factory making the inline Ha-40's.
A well-handled Ki100 in 1945 could outmanouver P47's with ease and even give the P51D's a run for their money - its best altitude performance-wise was probablya round the medium band.

If you cancel development of the early Ki61 Tony, do you loose the ability to develop and introduce the Ki100 which is a far better plane & one of the few interceptors able to meet the best of the Allied long-range fighters on anything like equal terms?


I'm not sure Ki-100 is worth waiting in this game. It was a good plane in real life, but when I look at the plane stats I'm not impressed at all...

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 62
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 2:32:01 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
no clue of how it really works but from what we usually hear, it seems like a squadron being at x altitude gets a die roll against each enemy squadron at y. Otherwise I canīt really imagine how it should work if you got one or two attacking squadrons diving on enemy squadrons at 8 different altitudes for example. Of course if the game thinks that the fighter at 30.000ft dives on the enemy at 28.000ft... boom boom boom... then dives further down at the one at 26.000ft... boom boom boom... then down to 20.000ft... boom boom boom... etc etc etc...

IMO the airmodel works very well when the dive isnīt involved, but with the dive you get pretty much loopsided results. And while the dive or bounce or whatever you want to call it surely was something to get an advantage when you surprise the enemy and take out one, two or three of the enemies not even aware of the enemy it is something complete different when you have one squadron keep on endlessly diving on another one, taking down 15 of the enemies when they donīt even get a shot at you. Surprising 15 fighters? When they are alerted and had 30min time to climb and intercept? With more or less equal aircraft (P-40 vs Zero for example) and equal pilots? No way. Wait, it sure can happen, but not the ongoing, repeating times as in the game. Such kill rates were the exception when both sides were equal and a height advantage surely didnīt get you such results in those instances.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/1/2010 2:35:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 63
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 3:16:36 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
I would just add a comment to the ongoing discussion: I think it is hard to differentiate the altitude bonus from the sweep bonus. It is hard to know which factor is at play.

At any rate, what I have seen is that if the battle goes on long enough, both sides lose the altitude advantage and then start cycling with one side bouncing, then the other, and so on till the end of the combat.

ADDED: also pay attention to the defensive skills of your fighter pilots. I think this makes a difference between just being engaged and being fired on from behind.

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 6/1/2010 3:17:56 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 64
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 3:24:51 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not sure Ki-100 is worth waiting in this game. It was a good plane in real life, but when I look at the plane stats I'm not impressed at all...

It's a lovely plane to look at and IMO well worth waiting for.
One of the few surviving models is to be found (if my memory is correct!) in RAF Hendon, N London

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 65
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 3:25:43 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
You are able to discern it in the combat replay though.

A sweep over CAP favours the bounce.
A CAP over escort favours the bounce.
Superior altitude also favours the bounce.

Thats the "bonus" everybody is talking about. So when you se x bounces y chances are that a dice roll involved the bonus.

The bonus associated with with altitude only is the dive.

In general I find it quite easy to get an idea where the bonus for one side originated.


And I agree that def attribute is a "very nice to have".

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 66
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 6:28:41 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
A house rule where you have to go looking up stuff and - more importantly - making certain you remember to apply the right number to the right aircraft is a loser of a house rule in my book. I know the intention is good but I would never use a house rule like that - too much additional stuff to do/remember and too easy to make errors.


I am here with you witpqs. I feel somehow disturbed by such artificial rules so to before every encounter look at stats of every plane involved...
Looking at stuff and preventing strange results of overused game mechanics -- this is a thing that the game's engine should do for me...

Moreover, limiting CAP & sweeps to best bands doesn't fix the problem -- if there one exist.
Because in practice you have Tojo sweep vs. P40K = fight at 20 000 ft. But Tojo vs Hurricane IIb Trop = 20 000 vs 15 000 ft...? So what is the fix here?
Next, late war -- P47D2 at 31 000 vs N1K2 at 20 000 ft? According to the "HRule of bands" I won't be allowed to place my defending fighters higher than 20 000? How is it different from the situation that P47s goes at 42 000 and defending N1K2 are placed at 35 000 (max alt available)??
Simply, I don't get the difference of such a HR...

If any, I'd suggest a HR that says no sweeps & CAP higher than 29 000. In this case -- we'd at least meet at a "equal" height, because this is a height available to most if not all Allied fighters. Personally, I believe there is no such a thing as "a high alt sweep advantage". There is "a sweep over CAP advantage" well documented. Many times I got good results with sweeping with Oscars well below 10 000 ft (the best mvr band).
But HRs are always to suit the game, because this is a game and both players should feel it's fun. If someone feels it is not, there is no way of continuing it.





Ark, has slowly pulled me around to his thinking here. It is not a great solution but works for now. I also agree that the fewer HRs the better as HRs tend to get mis-interpreted and will ruin friendships. We have a few in our game but mostly just play with common sense and an open dialog.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 67
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 7:22:39 PM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

I would just add a comment to the ongoing discussion: I think it is hard to differentiate the altitude bonus from the sweep bonus. It is hard to know which factor is at play.

At any rate, what I have seen is that if the battle goes on long enough, both sides lose the altitude advantage and then start cycling with one side bouncing, then the other, and so on till the end of the combat.

ADDED: also pay attention to the defensive skills of your fighter pilots. I think this makes a difference between just being engaged and being fired on from behind.



itīs not really that hard when you think about the dive in non sweep engagements, escorts for example. In that case, usually the Cap dives due to the fact that you probably wonīt send in bombers at 40.000ft because you want to hit something.

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 68
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/3/2010 12:59:56 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
itīs not really that hard when you think about the dive in non sweep engagements, escorts for example. In that case, usually the Cap dives due to the fact that you probably wonīt send in bombers at 40.000ft because you want to hit something.


I would have thought the ideal would be Allied players preferring to use P40Es at low level (like, under 10k feet), and that sort of thing. If you want that sort of thing going on then the P40 must perform better at low level than it does at high level, ie better even when being dived on.

Possibly by making it perform absolutely terribly at 35k feet rather than good at 10k feet and being bounced, admittedly.


I don't think the sweep bonus is much of an issue to be honest. I recall someone saying that it was minor. And try sweeping with P40s at 6000 feet into a Zero CAP at 35,000 feet. The P40s lose, big time.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 69
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/3/2010 3:59:50 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
I donīt think the sweep bonus is too strong either. Seems to depend on style of play...

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 70
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/3/2010 7:27:20 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I donīt think the sweep bonus is too strong either. Seems to depend on style of play...



Well, it is actually the combination of all factors. I have had a few nasty experiences vs big sweeps. But was the sweep, combined with the nasty tojo, flown by very exp pilots and altitude advantage. A deadly cocktail.

More of a concern to me is I have been unable to get more than one fighter unit so fly a sweep at a time. It would be nice to see 40 or 50 Allied planes go in at once rather than the drips and drabs. Once again JFBs have an advantage as they can build larger single fighter units and even if only one unit flies it still makes for a nice sweep vs the max 25 or 16 plane unit the Allies can put up.

I thought I would never say it but I miss the ability to combine fighter squadrons into a group like you could in WITP....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 71
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/4/2010 8:35:09 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I donīt think the sweep bonus is too strong either. Seems to depend on style of play...



Well, it is actually the combination of all factors. I have had a few nasty experiences vs big sweeps. But was the sweep, combined with the nasty tojo, flown by very exp pilots and altitude advantage. A deadly cocktail.

More of a concern to me is I have been unable to get more than one fighter unit so fly a sweep at a time. It would be nice to see 40 or 50 Allied planes go in at once rather than the drips and drabs. Once again JFBs have an advantage as they can build larger single fighter units and even if only one unit flies it still makes for a nice sweep vs the max 25 or 16 plane unit the Allies can put up.

I thought I would never say it but I miss the ability to combine fighter squadrons into a group like you could in WITP....



why do you have the same problems as me? Thought I would be the only bad player here? At least Iīm told so...

take the chicken and kill them, one for every sweep... someone said that helps too...

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 72
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/5/2010 11:03:07 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
The funny thing about this discussion on "altitude always wins and let's change it cos that is bad" is that is precisely what happened in real life - at least in Europe where the density and complexity of air-battles does match those that players create in AE; just check out (as a single example) what the Luftwaffe 109F did when attacking far larger numbers of good RAF fighters in late 41-early 42. As the game mechanism implies "height is everything' in the initial attack - I was going to add in sweeps as well - but remembered that the other variant was ultra-low sweeps. Not sure if the AE game mechanism can handle the zero warning of the low sweep.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 73
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 12:24:35 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I donīt think the sweep bonus is too strong either. Seems to depend on style of play...



Well, it is actually the combination of all factors. I have had a few nasty experiences vs big sweeps. But was the sweep, combined with the nasty tojo, flown by very exp pilots and altitude advantage. A deadly cocktail.

More of a concern to me is I have been unable to get more than one fighter unit so fly a sweep at a time. It would be nice to see 40 or 50 Allied planes go in at once rather than the drips and drabs. Once again JFBs have an advantage as they can build larger single fighter units and even if only one unit flies it still makes for a nice sweep vs the max 25 or 16 plane unit the Allies can put up.

I thought I would never say it but I miss the ability to combine fighter squadrons into a group like you could in WITP....


I am not sure I understand the complaint about not having them all go in at once. Isn't it better to have lots of little sweeps since each separate attack will get the sweep bonus? Wouldn't it be better to have 24 individual plane sweeps, with each plane getting the bonus, than one 24 plane sweep where only the initial 2-4 planes get the bonus and the rest are subject to being bounced?

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 74
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 7:43:21 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I donīt think the sweep bonus is too strong either. Seems to depend on style of play...



Well, it is actually the combination of all factors. I have had a few nasty experiences vs big sweeps. But was the sweep, combined with the nasty tojo, flown by very exp pilots and altitude advantage. A deadly cocktail.

More of a concern to me is I have been unable to get more than one fighter unit so fly a sweep at a time. It would be nice to see 40 or 50 Allied planes go in at once rather than the drips and drabs. Once again JFBs have an advantage as they can build larger single fighter units and even if only one unit flies it still makes for a nice sweep vs the max 25 or 16 plane unit the Allies can put up.

I thought I would never say it but I miss the ability to combine fighter squadrons into a group like you could in WITP....


I am not sure I understand the complaint about not having them all go in at once. Isn't it better to have lots of little sweeps since each separate attack will get the sweep bonus? Wouldn't it be better to have 24 individual plane sweeps, with each plane getting the bonus, than one 24 plane sweep where only the initial 2-4 planes get the bonus and the rest are subject to being bounced?



that depends on how many aircraft the enemy sends up as Cap. If you get heavily outnumbered your piece meal sweeps most likely get slaughtered. The model works very well if there is one squadron on Cap and one is sweeping. Try setting 8 squadrons on Cap and have 10 sweeping. Add in the dive... voila...

thatīs when I say itīs getting borked because you can then experience a level 4 airfield sending up 150-200 fighters on Cap to meet your single squadron sweeps but the level 9 airfield you launch the 400 fighters on a sweep sends them in piece meal. Level 4 airfield vs level 9 airfield, whatīs good for the goose...

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 75
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 7:45:00 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

The funny thing about this discussion on "altitude always wins and let's change it cos that is bad" is that is precisely what happened in real life - at least in Europe where the density and complexity of air-battles does match those that players create in AE; just check out (as a single example) what the Luftwaffe 109F did when attacking far larger numbers of good RAF fighters in late 41-early 42. As the game mechanism implies "height is everything' in the initial attack - I was going to add in sweeps as well - but remembered that the other variant was ultra-low sweeps. Not sure if the AE game mechanism can handle the zero warning of the low sweep.



absolutely... in Europe, with German, British and American aircraft. Japanese aircraft are a tad different and there was a good reason the airwar in the Pacific didnīt take place at 38.000ft. Which also wasnīt the standard height for the ETO.

_____________________________


(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 76
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 9:43:26 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Just because the incoming alt is 38k that does not tell you at which alt the combat takes place. Similar altitude is only maintained
if the side with a disadvantage in high alt performance plays the game of the opponent, which is usually not the brightest thing.

Also, stating that the PTO air combat did not take place at vhigh altitudes and at the same time ordering fighters to fly this alt is
quite amusing. You can set them any alt you like.
On a sidenote, if your opponent has an AB stacked like a hornets nest there are quite a lot of promising alternatives to sweeping the same AB
with less than equal forces again and again and afterwards be unhappy with the losses.

Thats basics guys...

Depending on the situation the same people complaining about uber sweep/alt bonus also complain about fragmented sweep.
I think the discussion is kinda funny.


_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 77
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 11:46:21 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just because the incoming alt is 38k that does not tell you at which alt the combat takes place. Similar altitude is only maintained
if the side with a disadvantage in high alt performance plays the game of the opponent, which is usually not the brightest thing.

so let us take part in your wisdom and tell us at which alt the combat takes place...

Also, stating that the PTO air combat did not take place at vhigh altitudes and at the same time ordering fighters to fly this alt is
quite amusing. You can set them any alt you like.

of course you can, keep sending your ac in at 10000ft while the enemy is at 10010ft... thatīs where you start and you will end up at max alt... of course you can stay at 10000ft, your opponent would sure be happy about it, or heīs of the same oppinion as you that it doesnīt matter, I wonīt rob you of that oppinion

On a sidenote, if your opponent has an AB stacked like a hornets nest there are quite a lot of promising alternatives to sweeping the same AB
with less than equal forces again and again and afterwards be unhappy with the losses.

Thats basics guys...

thatīs the usual unrelated, but sure perfect answer to a size 4 airfield being able to send up 200 fighters at once but a level 9 airfield not nearly being able to launch the same number at once, I have yet to see an AAR showing me that coordination is possible most of the times... it is NOT, speaking mainly about fighter sweeps here that seem to be another "special" compared to bomber strikes... but hey, if thereīs someone able to point me to an AAR proving me wrong, asking for the 124th time, I would be glad to read one... not a fairy tale style AAR, one that offers combat reports...

Depending on the situation the same people complaining about uber sweep/alt bonus also complain about fragmented sweep.
I think the discussion is kinda funny.

funny are only the people that bring up myths about something (example: remember the pre Cap flak threads?? ) saying itīs all so well and fine just to have michaelm (thanks to him) find out it definetely wasnīt working as designed... so much about your dev supported answers that just suited at that time... oh well, who states in the same sentense that he hasnīt played the game for an eternity... well thatīs of course telling the truth then...



< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/6/2010 11:51:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 78
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 12:07:51 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Hey CT, subtle as ever...

I have no intention to argue with you on this topic because thats a waste of energy anyway.

Neither do I need to prove anything to you, I am happy with the fact that the concepts I am using for A2A are working as Iīd expect them to,
and I close to never have a situation where I cannot track a faulty coordination or a lopsided result back to a very obvious reason.
Whether that is on my game or on othersīgames, provided sufficient information is provided does not really matter.

Sorry if you misunderstood, the centerline of my post was that I find this bantering about hommade difficulties amusing and maybe try to point
out alternative approaches to problem solution to readers who are still at the beginning of their journey to understand the game (engine).
- that does not include you, because you either already understood many of the concepts or developed an astounding resistance in understanding
other concepts which admittedly often results in a quite funny read.

So, noone is stopping you, please banter on.







_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 79
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/6/2010 1:59:38 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Hey CT, subtle as ever...

I have no intention to argue with you on this topic because thats a waste of energy anyway.

Neither do I need to prove anything to you, I am happy with the fact that the concepts I am using for A2A are working as Iīd expect them to,
and I close to never have a situation where I cannot track a faulty coordination or a lopsided result back to a very obvious reason.
Whether that is on my game or on othersīgames, provided sufficient information is provided does not really matter.

Sorry if you misunderstood, the centerline of my post was that I find this bantering about hommade difficulties amusing and maybe try to point
out alternative approaches to problem solution to readers who are still at the beginning of their journey to understand the game (engine).
- that does not include you, because you either already understood many of the concepts or developed an astounding resistance in understanding
other concepts which admittedly often results in a quite funny read.

So, noone is stopping you, please banter on.









all Iīm asking for is what a dev once asked: evidence. Why is there noone being able to post a series of combat reports that actually shows what people are talking about. And not a dozen examples taken out over a month, but a series of combat reports day by day. Youīve got a bigger car? Hey, just show me a photo.

Making claims but not showing anything (or making claims and not playing the game at all) is what makes these claims obsolete. But hey, to each his own. You know, to me, it was a pleasure to read about pre Cap flak because many of those "complainers" were more or less called stupid just to see the truth... lol, how satisfying. Again, thanks to michaelm for finding a flaw... But that of course has nothing to do with any other "issues" which just work fine for you.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/6/2010 2:00:58 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 80
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/7/2010 7:14:17 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Why? Does not showing you a photo prevent me from having a bigger car?

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 81
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/7/2010 7:36:30 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Why? Does not showing you a photo prevent me from having a bigger car?



still leaves you with the problem if you can drive it

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 82
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/7/2010 8:56:19 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Well that heavily depends on the car in question. I am quite confident I can drive every common middle class car
and probably most larger cars if its not a 40 ton monster (I could try but theres probably a bit of luck involved).

I could try to drive soemthing like a Bugatti Galibier, but I am very unsure about my abilities to handle a 1000PS
engine without practice.
On the other hand if I wake up in hospital I most probably would not blame the car first...

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 83
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 6:14:22 PM   
TheElf


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

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

And I don't agree with houserules on max altitude.

It is simplistic. All a houserule like that does is mean that everybody's maneuver rating that matters is the maneuver rating at 30K feet. This means a lot of aircraft get short changed.

You might as well argue you can't go higher than 6k feet.

The altitude thing ruins the air model completely. All that tender loving care inputting maneuver ratings at different altitudes is utterly wasted, none of it is relevant. House rules don't change that. What could be a very complex sub game has ended up being borked by the God Stat.

Surely it would be fairly easy to fix? Just a different weighting to dive advantages, might even be one line of code depending on how it all works. The dive massacre is in my mind the absolute #1 issue with this game, fix that and it'd be so much better.

Interestingly a JFB discovered the dive massacre early on while playing with his Zeroes - in his shortsightedness he concluded that P40s were too good when above Zeroes IIRC, when the true conclusion is that it wasn't about P40 vs Zero at all, it was about how anything flying above anything else wins.


That is an entirely accurate and persuasive conclusion EUBanana. In WWII if you had a 2-3k' altitude advantage you held the initiative. Any aircraft could attain ~400kts or greater in a dive (less so the early IJ models), and that energy was THE advantage. If you were beset upon by an adversary with Energy you had two options:

1. Run. nose-low slicing max performance turn to place the bandits at your six o clock and get to Max Q as quick as you can, and hope the bandits can't catch you.

2. Climb into them with an energy sustaining attitude (not best climb) so as to retain some maneuvering Airspeed and be prepared to be defensive. Max perform your aircraft in order to defeat enemy WEZs (Weapon engagement Zones), and hope to force a BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvering) error and then capitalize to gain offensive position.

There are a scant few other options. Being at an energy deficit is bad news in the end game. In the real world leaders with sharp eyes or Radar assist might get SA (situational awareness) to an enemy with an advantage and orient his flight in such a way as to minimize or even reverse that initial disadvantage BEFORE the end game. When I say end game I mean the point where all the jockeying for position ends and combat is joined.

As a Side note, besides my day job I fly a lot of IL-2 Sturmovik on a full realism server with many mods that aim to correct alot of Oleg's (the designer) bias or outright mis-modelling. Here are some things I've noted applying the fundamentals I have from my day job.

1. A Hellcat or corsair working in pairs can neutralize a single Zeke, and even defeat him, but the 2 US pilots MUST be talking together and fly their best defensive fight and work the higher bandit down over time.

2. A single Hellcat or Corsair is usually deadmeat in the above situation unless he gets his nose down and dives out, but if he delays this move a Zeke can close and stay with the Heavier US plane until it builds momentum.

3. A Tony can dive with a P-38, and out turn him at any speed. The P-38 Must keep his speed up, make one pass and then extend in an energy sustaining shallow climb, NEVER turn with a Tony once LOS (line of sight rate) picks up, and deflection is more than 60 deg off the tail, you'll only bleed energy and sacrifice advantage.

4. A P-38 below a Tony is at a supreme disadvantage, not being able to out turn him, the only option is to run, extend and then hope to return to the fight with enough separation to force a head on attack. Or run home.

5. A P-40 with more than 3k' of altitude over a Zeke is in a supreme position. He can choose his point of attack and sustain his energy over several passes, and retains a speed advantage such that the Zeke must neutralize him in order to escape. A smart P-40 pilot once neutralized will use his Max Q, superior diving speed to leave the Zeke in it's tracks. He better also hope that the Zeke doesn't have a friend nearby gaining position on him while the first Zeke baits him.

These combats above a examples of small affairs, not large air battles, but once a large Melee begins that is essentially what you have. A wild mix of many small, momentary separate combats. One might start the combat with an energy advantage, kill his opponent quickly, then find himself under the guns of a second enemy that discovered him quite luckily preoccupied with his first kill.

A final word on the altitude bands. They work. The point of them is to stratify Air combat into realistic zones that mirror the performance envelopes of all Aircraft, and allow some of the more complex interactions of classic matchups to occur. It is a fleshing out of the original system. It isn't the ONLY thing that is at work. There are many other rules that most of you end-users are not aware of. Nor need you be. But Aircraft design, technological advances, and industrial capability (read metallurgy), is what decided many of the air battles in WWII. If you find that your aircraft are at a disadvantage at 25k' because it is underpowered, has no supercharger and cannot outrun it's newest opponent, and it's primary attribute of Maneuverability is nulled then that is historical. This game, and we designers, strive to be as historically accurate as we can be. I feel we achieved that goal.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 7/11/2010 6:21:20 PM >


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 84
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 6:57:12 PM   
TheElf


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dora09


I have to agree that the Ki61 is worthless in this game (they were quite good in WitP).
It seems strange to me that the Ki61 have such horrible manuvre numbers while the Ki44 is better? The Ki44 far less manouverable than the Ki61 in real life.

I also feel that the Ki84 is nerfed a bit, the Ki44IIc is better statistically if you consider service rating.

I don't agree that you should avoid the Ki44IIb. They have made up the bulk of my IJA fighter arm up into 1944 and have done okay, definately better than Ki44IIa and Ki61s.

The simple fact is that because altitude is the ONLY thing that matters in this game ALL japanese fighters except the NIK1 are basically useless in 1943 when the p47 shows up regardless of pilot skill. The only reason the N1K1 is good is because it is the only Jap fighter that can fly at 40K (eventhough in real life the N1K1 was terrible at high alt.).

Intially I thought the alt bands were interesting but now they just make air combat entirely one dimentional (literally). IMO it needs to be overhauled big time.

Welcome to reality. Except for the "because Altitude is the ONLY thing that matters..." nonsense. I can assure you it isn't, but by the time the P-47s and P-51s and Corsairs Oh My! begin to appear it might as well, because so many of the other intangibles also belong to the allies. Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game.

That said, Altitude advantage, and even more so the Higher performance of one aircraft over another AT altitude is key to any engagement. Unfortunately for the IJ player he has to deal with the decisions of the Real world aircraft designers at Mitsubishi and Nakijima, while the allied player can bask in the glow from North American, Vought, Republic and Grumman...

The simple fact is that the Allies have a greater preponderance of BETTER aircraft. Get used to it.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Dora09)
Post #: 85
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 8:36:07 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Welcome to reality. Except for the "because Altitude is the ONLY thing that matters..." nonsense. I can assure you it isn't, but by the time the P-47s and P-51s and Corsairs Oh My! begin to appear it might as well, because so many of the other intangibles also belong to the allies. Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game.

That said, Altitude advantage, and even more so the Higher performance of one aircraft over another AT altitude is key to any engagement. Unfortunately for the IJ player he has to deal with the decisions of the Real world aircraft designers at Mitsubishi and Nakijima, while the allied player can bask in the glow from North American, Vought, Republic and Grumman...

The simple fact is that the Allies have a greater preponderance of BETTER aircraft. Get used to it.


Ian,

Just as an example, in my PBM we started with no altitude limit, eventually went to 30,000 and more recently to 25,000. The rationale is that it's unrealistic for sweeps and CAPs to be set any higher and - take a breath - altitude advantage is over-rated in the engine. I've been feeling that the aircrafts' own limits are fine (plane got a ceiling of 36,000? Use it if you like!), but there is a lot of complaining on the forums about altitude. Many folks have the impression that altitude is a problem.

You have made comments/explanations in the past that were enormously helpful is clearing up mysteries/misunderstandings on aspects of the air game. Would you consider making a post in the main AE forum about altitude in combat, altitude settings, and any other altitude issues you deem appropriate? It would be most welcome and appreciated.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 86
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 9:16:27 PM   
TheElf


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Welcome to reality. Except for the "because Altitude is the ONLY thing that matters..." nonsense. I can assure you it isn't, but by the time the P-47s and P-51s and Corsairs Oh My! begin to appear it might as well, because so many of the other intangibles also belong to the allies. Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game.

That said, Altitude advantage, and even more so the Higher performance of one aircraft over another AT altitude is key to any engagement. Unfortunately for the IJ player he has to deal with the decisions of the Real world aircraft designers at Mitsubishi and Nakijima, while the allied player can bask in the glow from North American, Vought, Republic and Grumman...

The simple fact is that the Allies have a greater preponderance of BETTER aircraft. Get used to it.


Ian,

Just as an example, in my PBM we started with no altitude limit, eventually went to 30,000 and more recently to 25,000. The rationale is that it's unrealistic for sweeps and CAPs to be set any higher and - take a breath - altitude advantage is over-rated in the engine. I've been feeling that the aircrafts' own limits are fine (plane got a ceiling of 36,000? Use it if you like!), but there is a lot of complaining on the forums about altitude. Many folks have the impression that altitude is a problem.

You have made comments/explanations in the past that were enormously helpful is clearing up mysteries/misunderstandings on aspects of the air game. Would you consider making a post in the main AE forum about altitude in combat, altitude settings, and any other altitude issues you deem appropriate? It would be most welcome and appreciated.

What people are lamenting about altitude is the same as what IJ pilots were lamenting in 1944. "we can't compete with new Allied designs above 20k'". It's the way it was. The Allies held the high ground and if the Japanese tried to one up the P-47s, P-38s, and USN Corsairs and Hellcats, they were only in positions of advantage for a short time before superior superchargers and greater Power and larger propellers (not to mention superior numbers and tactics) neutralized those initial advantages. Altitude (or energy surplus) is the great equalizer.

Some people complain that Sweeps at 25k' should not engage a CAP at 10k' because they are SO FAR APART. They are SO much higher...this is ludicrous. even a 20k' altitude delta is only a little over 3 miles. If you are looking for the bad guy and you know he is likely somewhere below you, you'll see him. Getting a tally of a single fighter a 10 miles is doable for a trained 20/15 or 20/20 eyeball. 3 miles, or even 4 for arguments sake is no problem. I reject this line of thought as being ignorant of reality. The ONLY validity it has is where weather (ie. layered cloud below the sweep) would obstruct tallies. Guess what Weather as a modifier of DLs is already in there.

The thing with the Altitude bands is that is clearly defines where one aircraft is able to perform at it's greatest advantage. When your mainline fighter begins to go up against your opponents newest fighter that benefits from a higher/better performance you are losing. You need to do something about it. Here is a short list

1. Compensate for the qualitative disadvantage with Quantitative superiority. Take the altitude hit and make him come down to you. It is going to hurt. It's supposed to. but the altitude advantage is a short-lived 1st round bonus. If you can survive with any numbers and whittle his smaller force down, you can retain aerial superiority. But there is a tipping point. Be prepared to make sacrifices. And be prepared to set a time limit for which this concentration of force will have to achieve a victory. When it becomes clear that your opponent is willing to force the issue and you quantitative edge is dulling it's time to admit defeat and look to redefine the fight. Pull back, cut losses and plan your second line of defense.

2. Avoid the fight until you can marshal your forces with either overwhleming material and numerical superiority, or you begin to produce a competitive(notice I did not say superior as that may not be an option Think Sherman tank vs. Tiger tank) fighter design, especially when combined with a cadre of elite pilots that you have preserved from your early victories. It can be a rock-scissors-paper equation where you have Aircraft capability- Pilot EXP - Numerical superiority. If you can win 2 out of 3 in this you stand a chance of winning, until the balance shifts to your opponent.

3. Personally, regardless of altitude bonus I would fly my fighters where they are most effective and try to fill them with competent pilots if I want to have any hope. As the IJ player you WILL reach a point where you are on the back side of the technology/performance curve, and you need to have coddled your air forces such that they are at their healthiest when the grind starts. Then be realistic about your goals.

Everyone thinks of a game in terms of win or lose. What many people who play AE lose sight of is how each side defines win or lose.

For that allies, you lose if you haven't taken territory on a timeline equal too or later than the RL commanders. You are winning if you are ahead of schedule.

For the IJ player you are losing if you relinquish territory on a timeline ahead of reality and you are winning if you can inflict damaging losses to the Allied player on a scale greater than was done in RL.

THAT is how I measure success.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 87
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 9:40:20 PM   
TheElf


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Welcome to reality. Except for the "because Altitude is the ONLY thing that matters..." nonsense. I can assure you it isn't, but by the time the P-47s and P-51s and Corsairs Oh My! begin to appear it might as well, because so many of the other intangibles also belong to the allies. Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game.

That said, Altitude advantage, and even more so the Higher performance of one aircraft over another AT altitude is key to any engagement. Unfortunately for the IJ player he has to deal with the decisions of the Real world aircraft designers at Mitsubishi and Nakijima, while the allied player can bask in the glow from North American, Vought, Republic and Grumman...

The simple fact is that the Allies have a greater preponderance of BETTER aircraft. Get used to it.


Ian,

Just as an example, in my PBM we started with no altitude limit, eventually went to 30,000 and more recently to 25,000. The rationale is that it's unrealistic for sweeps and CAPs to be set any higher and - take a breath - altitude advantage is over-rated in the engine. I've been feeling that the aircrafts' own limits are fine (plane got a ceiling of 36,000? Use it if you like!), but there is a lot of complaining on the forums about altitude. Many folks have the impression that altitude is a problem.




Altitude is only a problem for the individual of the receiving end of a beating to due to and altitude deficiency.

Altitude IS the MOST important factor on the WWII air combat battlefield. Just like the high ground is the most important facet of position on the Ground battlefield. "I have the high ground" is a statement of positional superiority that Negates, Nullifies, diminishes, or reduces the combatant's other advantages, whether they be numerical, qualitative, morale, leadership. It Challenges the low ground to overcome it. It is a fact of combat.

It is unrealistic to fly at 30k'+ all the time. But that is the fault of the player. Would you like me to remove that decision process from you? Unfortunately the detractors for behaving this way are not reflected in the game. what are they?

1. pilots found it uncomfortable to fly for long periods of time at high altitude. It was fatiguing.
2. Range was affected, as was loiter time
3. Airplanes could fly and even fight up there, but they were mushy and difficult to maneuver. This is why bigger motors, higher manifold pressures, and larger broader props were important. If you didn't have them you were at a disadvantage.
4. Being higher when weather was a present made navigation and target detection more difficult. (This is in the game)

We could institute higher ops loss chances(fatigue), but that takes a code rewrite. We are not rewriting code.
We could DECREASE the chance of combat occurring, but then all we would do is swap complaints about Altitude for "why are my planes not fighting?!?!?!?"

If you are an IJN player in 1944 and you feel like you are losing the air War unfairly, you are right. But that is the same way the Real world commanders felt. you have some options available to you that they didn't so in that sense you have more hope, but it is an uphill experimental battle.

Likewise if you are and allied player in 1941 and you feel like you are at a loss for how to overcome the IJ hordes, ditto...

The only thing you have is 20/20 hindsight. YOU and the CODE know that a P-40 can beat a Zeke under the right circumstances...with an altitude advantage and by not turning. We could code this out, but it would be a hard code. How would you like that?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 88
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 9:54:33 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Elf,

As usual: thanks for your thoughts and insights.  MUCH appreciated.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 89
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 10:14:07 PM   
Sardaukar


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

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Cancelling the Tony Program Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.844