Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Air combat reports are beyond meaningless, because they are not remotely accurate. Period. Pretending otherwise is disingenious at best.

quote:

You are fighting in 42 and the enemy is fielding 45 skilled pilots,

AVG pilots are in 50-65 skill range at the beginning, and most of them probably were aces after early-game ambushes and battles with Nates.

Also, my bet was correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
(1) Why is it a "fairy tale AAR"?

quote:


(2) What is it specifically about this "fairy tale AAR" that invalidates the combat results from being relevant to the playing of other WITP:AE scenarios such as scenario 1?

quote:


(7) Why, before dismissing totally the value of his AAR, did you not directly address the issues raised by FatR in the last post of page 3 of his AAR regarding the air combat results?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Or that the people saying the dive doesnīt matter could at some point perhaps just do an combat report AAR repeatably showing they donīt suffer at 10-25k ft when the enemy is coming in constantly at 38k ft. That would be cool. Where is the evidence for it?

In my current Japanese AAR, for example. But I bet you'll ignore it anyway.

not at all ignoring it, but itīs what Iīve said above, itīs a fairy tale AAR. Fairy tale and being in Feb 42 doesnīt say anything at all, Iīm sorry Sir. Iīm not critisizing any style of AAR writing (fairy tale AARs are actually far more interesting to read) but not showing the combat reports make them totally obsolete when you want to analyze what is happening. And thatīs whatīs been said by the devs usually. You are fighting in 42 and the enemy is fielding 45 skilled pilots, why on Earth do I even comment? Again, not critizing, but raising your hand with a PBEM that made it to Feb 42, when other people (like Miller) made it to mid/late 44 isnīt really worth a comment either. Next thing probably would be to quote an AI game. You can tell something as long as you wish, but all we have are your words. So? Weīve got words from forum members that have been on the forum 5 or more years longer than you saying the different and they can even show the evidence pictured in combat reports of their game, not only by doing a fairy tale AAR.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2469628

castor troy,

I assume that both you and FatR are referring to the current contest between Yubari (Allied) v FatR (Japanese). That being so please clarify the following:

(1) Why is it a "fairy tale AAR"?

itīs a non combat report AAR

(2) What is it specifically about this "fairy tale AAR" that invalidates the combat results from being relevant to the playing of other WITP:AE scenarios such as scenario 1?

donīt know what you mean

(3) On what basis did you make the claim "the enemy is fielding 45 skilled pilots"?

on the claim that his AAR is in mid Feb42 and if the Allied hasnīt used all his squadrons on training and avoided combat completely he wonīt have come much further than 45 on average. Or perhaps 55? Doesnīt matter, my game is in mid 43 and Iīm only fielding skill 70 pilots and there it doesnīt matter either

(4) Why did you disregard the screenshot in post #4 of Yubari's AAR which details Allied pilot skills?

I have not read through every page of his AAR because without the combat reports itīs meaningless to me (and the devs apparently)

(5) Why does "being in Feb 42 doesn't say anything at all", specifically why should three months of combat results be disregarded?

how much of experience is coming from three MONTHS of war to say yes or no when other people, like the op Miller, has come to a different conclusion from playing two years longer into the game? Why not starting to make claims on Dec 8th?

(6) Why do you need the combat reports when the players provide details of numbers of aircraft, locations and heights in their commentary?

if someone puts together three days (or more?) of combat into one fairy tale post then he canīt provide the same info the detailed combat reports of those three days can offer

(7) Why, before dismissing totally the value of his AAR, did you not directly address the issues raised by FatR in the last post of page 3 of his AAR regarding the air combat results?

Am I expected to post in his AAR? Answer would be to leave his AAR anyway

(8) Why do you dismiss FatR with the following words: "You can tell something as long as you wish, but all we have are your words. So?". That is as good as calling FatR a liar who fabricates evidence and therefore not to be believed.

Iīm not calling him a liar, Iīm asking for the same as the air team leader: evidence. Only accepted evidence so far has been combat reports (by the officials) and not "Iīm shooting down enemy aircraft at a rate of 20:1".

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


You plan to respond to Alfred?

Ooops too late. Sorry. Couldnīt stand the wait...

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Hm. In which way? FatR just voiced the obvious.
The sun is bright. Am I disqualified?

You plan to respond to Alfred?

Ooops too late. Sorry. Couldnīt stand the wait...

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Dude. You spent a day arguing with me and then at the end admitted that you've not even tried it out yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
LOL where did you get that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Got me there. Peace.

Although a combat report is a fairy tale on its own.
The truth about actual things are in the combat replay but thats a bit hard to post...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

A question to those of you that have given this topic some thought:

If I were to have a house rule that my opponent and I adhered to regarding altitude maximums / airframe type-would this make results more realistic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus

I've been playing Guadalnalcanal scen for the past 4 months now. Sweeps and dogfights have normally been taking place from 10-15k, sometimes lower and usually higher when escorting bombers. There have been no strato sweeps nor have we been playing the altitude game. From my experience, the main factors are Air skill, Defense skill, speed of fighters, fatigue and luck. My Zeros have put a beating on my opponents P-39s, Wildcats, and P-40s, but it has never been a walk-over on my side.

If there is some bonus that some how magically makes fighters flying at higher alts all supreme unstoppable gods of the air, then I have seen no trace of it. Flying at altitudes where my planes have high MVR ratings have worked for my Zeros and his fighters alike. A number in the 30s or 40s is and will always be greater than a number in the low 10s. but then again, none of that matters that much if the pilots are green.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

1. Some aircraft are naturally more manueverable at higher altitudes. This gives them an advantage. These happen to be early war IJA/IJN aircraft while their allied counterparts are better at lower altitudes. This of course reverses by war's end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It's my understanding that the maneuver ratings are not pure for apples to apples comparisons. The max speed is considered, too.

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It's my understanding that the maneuver ratings are not pure for apples to apples comparisons. The max speed is considered, too.

speaking of speed "being considered", isn't the AAR between FatR and Yubari a modified scenario? i.e., aren't the japanese fighter speeds adjusted up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Well, I just had a play, 18 sweeping P40s (turns out to be 16 usually) vs 18 Zeroes on 60% CAP (which means about 11 up normally and the rest on standby), range 5, Zeroes at 25,000'. Zeroes had an experience advantage, average 74 vs average 54 for the P40s - but the P40s are the ones doing the sweep. Thousand Mile War scenario as its small and quick, with the Rufes at Kiska Island turned into A6M2s.

With the P40s at 29,000' the tally, taken from air losses and so presumed accurate, was

4 - 1, 4 - 1, 3 - 1, 4 - 1, all to the P40s. So lets say 4 to 1 in the Allied favour.
this was 4 different runs of a single turn, or 5 consecutive days of same settings? did you restart the game for each run, or load the save each time? i thought i read something about having to restart to get different RNG's for each run...also curious if CAP had radar assist

Then I ran a set with P40s at 25k feet, 20k, 15k, 10k, 5k and 100'. I only ran it once at each altitude.

25k feet = 4 losses each
20k feet = 3 losses each
15k feet = 3 losses each
10k feet = 3 losses each
5k feet = 2 P40s lost, 3 Zeroes lost
100' = 8 P40s lost, 0 Zeroes lost

I think the 100' one which I think is a special case as the combat report talked about strafing, so perhaps ignore that one. So lets say 1:1, at all altitude bands.

Interestingly even when the P40s were sweeping at low altitude, like 5000', almost all if not all the actual kills happened after 'P40 dives on Zero' and they were all after the initial collision which makes me think the P40s were shooting down the Zeroes that were on standby and scrambling and that those particular fighters tended to be below the P40.

Conclusion - stratosweeps work. If alt bands work I'm not really seeing it.

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

speaking of speed "being considered", isn't the AAR between FatR and Yubari a modified scenario? i.e., aren't the japanese fighter speeds adjusted up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It's my understanding that the maneuver ratings are not pure for apples to apples comparisons. The max speed is considered, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It's my understanding that the maneuver ratings are not pure for apples to apples comparisons. The max speed is considered, too.

The max speed is static at all altitudes, AFAIK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

1. Some aircraft are naturally more manueverable at higher altitudes. This gives them an advantage. These happen to be early war IJA/IJN aircraft while their allied counterparts are better at lower altitudes. This of course reverses by war's end.

That's wrong. The maneurability difference between Allied and Japanese early-war planes decreases as altitude increases. Zero has 17-points MVR advantage over P-40E at ground level and only 8-points one at max altitude. If not for the ability of Zeros and Oscars to fly higher than nearly all early Allied fighters, stratosphere battles would have benefitted Allies exclusively.

This dynamics persists until the war's end. P-47N is 9 MVR behind Ki-84b at ground level and actually exceeds it by 3 points at the highest altitude band.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus

Conclusion: In that case it'd be better to send P-40s in at 5k where you loose less planes then send them in at 29k just so you can get 4 kills. The object in war is to loose less than your opponent not to get highest kill tally.Even if you lost 0 planes and shot down 1 at 5k, you'd still send them in at 29k, even if that meant loosing 60 planes and shooting down 60. but if you want to use your fighters just for the sole reason to get a 5:1 ratio, then nobody's stopping you.