High Altitude Sweep Rant

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

High Altitude Sweep Rant

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 >> High Altitude Sweep Rant

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/26/2010 10:05:18 PM

mbatch729

Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed
Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 36000 feet *
CAP engaged:
Kanoya Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
21 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810
Raid is overhead

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

Post #: 1

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/26/2010 10:15:47 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I feel your pain. There are numerous threads on the issue so I'd suggest wading into those ones instead of starting another one

. The air model is supposedly working as intended and there are numerous variables coming into play, but personally I think the skill of the pilot and the maneuverability of the aircraft have been downgraded to the point of impotence. Speed and altitude trump everything.

(in reply to mbatch729)

Post #: 2

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/26/2010 10:16:46 PM

crsutton

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

Well the debate had burned out and now just smolders in the background. Occasionly, a brushfire will break out. I am guessing one might start up now. Caster Troy, you want to take this one?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mbatch729)

Post #: 3

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/26/2010 10:19:27 PM

CapAndGown

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

let me just add:

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 4

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/26/2010 10:51:16 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

In my PBEM with Arnhem we agreed on "manoeuver rating" limitations on altitude. So far I am happy with it. Havent talked about it with Arnhem but it seems to be fair.

A fictional fighter has the following man. ratings

0-10k ft (30) 10-15k ft (30) 15-20k ft (28) etc

It max allowed altitude is 15k feet

A fictional fighter has the following man. ratings

0-10k ft (15) 10-15k ft (15) 15-20k ft (15) 20-25k ft (11)

It max allowed altitude is 20k feet

I am sure there is more info about it on the forum.

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 5

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 1:43:14 AM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

CAP,

To say so much without using words!

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 6

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 9:40:26 AM

EUBanana

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

I'm sure <censored to protect the guilty> will be on hand in a sec to tell you how everything is fine and how deep the tactics of aerial combat are, and maybe that you just suck, soon.

_____________________________

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 7

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 9:48:07 AM

Sardaukar

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

<counter-teminus mode on> Yes. <counter-terminus-mode off>

_____________________________

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

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 8

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 10:03:02 AM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In my PBEM with Arnhem we agreed on "manoeuver rating" limitations on altitude. So far I am happy with it. Havent talked about it with Arnhem but it seems to be fair.

A fictional fighter has the following man. ratings

0-10k ft (30) 10-15k ft (30) 15-20k ft (28) etc

It max allowed altitude is 15k feet

A fictional fighter has the following man. ratings

0-10k ft (15) 10-15k ft (15) 15-20k ft (15) 20-25k ft (11)

It max allowed altitude is 20k feet

I am sure there is more info about it on the forum.

Problem I have with this sort of thing is it merely swaps one god stat (ceiling) for another god stat (some derived stat based on maneuver bands), which is just as unfair as just using ceiling. You're just changing which fighters get to fly higher.

Probably the fairest way is just to cap everybody at 20k', which all fighters can reach. Simpler, too. So basically you remove the bounce entirely from fighter-fighter combat without bomber involvement.

_____________________________

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 9

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 10:04:45 AM

EUBanana

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

That said. Split CAP seems to work so you could try that.

Have some Zeroes at 10k feet as bait.
Have some more Zeroes at ceiling.

Some Hurricanes will dive the Zeroes at 10k feet, and be dived in turn by the higher Zeroes.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 10

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 10:25:00 AM

Sardaukar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In my PBEM with Arnhem we agreed on "manoeuver rating" limitations on altitude. So far I am happy with it. Havent talked about it with Arnhem but it seems to be fair.

A fictional fighter has the following man. ratings

0-10k ft (30) 10-15k ft (30) 15-20k ft (28) etc

It max allowed altitude is 15k feet

A fictional fighter has the following man. ratings

0-10k ft (15) 10-15k ft (15) 15-20k ft (15) 20-25k ft (11)

It max allowed altitude is 20k feet

I am sure there is more info about it on the forum.

Problem I have with this sort of thing is it merely swaps one god stat (ceiling) for another god stat (some derived stat based on maneuver bands), which is just as unfair as just using ceiling. You're just changing which fighters get to fly higher.

Probably the fairest way is just to cap everybody at 20k', which all fighters can reach. Simpler, too. So basically you remove the bounce entirely from fighter-fighter combat without bomber involvement.

Unfortunately that removes advantage from fighters that actually were historically good high-altitude performers, like P-47. So 20k max ceiling is not really fair either.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 11

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 11:08:49 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

The good thing about our "solution" is that for example the P47 gets to fly up to 25k feet since its man. bands work like that.... Planes that were quite good B&Z in real life get the chance to do so... for the most part

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 12

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 11:12:17 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

Probably the fairest way is just to cap everybody at 20k', which all fighters can reach. Simpler, too. So basically you remove the bounce entirely from fighter-fighter combat without bomber involvement.

This will give planes with high man. (Japanese) most advantages..... Now unless the game will get a "evade combat if disadvantaged" you will keep having problems with the system. We just have to work with what we have got...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 13

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 11:26:53 AM

Sardaukar

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

I tested this a bit in earlier thread and pilot experience & defensive skill are big factors and will offset altitude advantage. So if defender is more experienced, he will usually win the fight even when enemy has altitude advantage.

Split CAP is also one possibility, if your pilots do not have exp advantage over opposition. That is, putting one unit to CAP 15k and other to 5k in same base, for example.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 14

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 11:30:19 AM

Sardaukar

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

My "The Elf-approved" post about it is here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2519677&mpage=7�

What I think is that is't bit of paper, rock, scissors-situation, where you often have more than one thing stacked against you.

For example, if enemy has better plane (SPD, MVR, Climb, DUR, Armour), it's advantage. Experience and skills are big advantage, altitude is also big advantage.

In some situations, for example, not many tactical decisions make you win the battle. Lets take for example Malaya with Zeroes vs. Buffaloes. Now you are against way better plane with way better pilots. If they also come from above (as any IJ player would unless escorting), you are in world of hurt. No amount of split CAP will offset at least 3 advantages, maybe at least 4 if they also have better Air Leader. It may lower the kill ratio a bit, but Buffaloes are going to get creamed even if numbers are similar. I have no doubt about that numerical advantage skews the results even more.

I tried to have approx. same number of planes engaging in my tests and achieved it with max. +/- 2 plane difference. But if enemy also has double number planes with all those advantages...

In situation like that, I suggest not to fight but pull back and train your pilots so that at least skill levels are comparable before engaging. Sometimes there are no other options but to fight, though. On the other hand, if opposition is sweeping, those planes are not escorting bombers, so you may be able to even the score now and then by killing unescorted bombers. Kills raise pilot exp and skills quickly.

To me, it seems that saving better pilots (70+) and sticking them to elite formations is best way to counter enemy a/c superiority locally. Exp/skills seem to be big modifiers. For Japan, it probably also pays to invest R&D to planes that can somewhat compete with allies in altitude. For example, Ki-61 Hien/Tony was historically about only plane that could challenge Allied planes high during mid-war. If starting to get high-altitude sweeps from planes like P-47/P-38, that is bad place to be in Zero/Oscar.

There are many modifiers in A2A combat in AE, but some patters can be distinguished. Like, altitude itself is not only thing that kills. Altitude and Exp/skill edge combined is big killer. Add to that better planes and situation gets darker for defender. Defender can lessen the impact by building his pilots to higher exp/skill level and hope for better planes. Or just try to outnumber enemy with experienced pilots. But it's always bad situation if number of factors are stacked against you.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 15

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 11:36:49 AM

Puhis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbatch729

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

I know!

When I started my PBEM games, I did want to play "historical" way. But my other opponent start using high altitude sweeps and CAPs. Stupid me, but for a while my planes were flying at 20000 ft. So Hurricanes murdered my Oscars. Usually I did lose 10-15 planes, when he lost just one Hurricane (if I was lucky). That did piss me off, so now my Oscars are flying at 38500 feet. During last sweep Oscars shot down 12 Hurricanes, and no japanese losses.

My suggestion is that you need Oscars to counter Hurricanes. Oscars can fly higher...

IMO this altitude flaw is biggest problem in this game. Any other issues really are negligible.

(in reply to mbatch729)

Post #: 16

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 12:35:31 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well the debate had burned out and�now just smolders in the background. Occasionly, a brushfire will break out. I am guessing one might start up now. Caster Troy, you want to take this one?� �

not really, everything has been said on this issue I guess. Not that I would feel it is anywhere correct nor better than WITP where altitude did NOT matter at all. I just want to point out that it first long was said by the responsible person everything is fine until we reached the point that the air team lead actually was admitting it would be kind of an exploit.

Unfortunetely even that it now is admitted it would be an exploit, it doesn�t seem that there would be any thoughts of changing something which makes me a bit sad. While I am fine with hrs on lots of things, I have yet to think of any I would accept on this matter.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 8/27/2010 12:39:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 17

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 1:44:51 PM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

Well in my game The max att alt is 26,000 for fighter on cap and sweeps 25,000 max so the defender gets a helping hand.

Tigercub!

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 18

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 2:04:22 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I tested this a bit in earlier thread and pilot experience & defensive skill are big factors and will offset altitude advantage. So if defender is more experienced, he will usually win the fight even when enemy has altitude advantage.

Hi Sardaukar,

I saw that test and agree ur conclusions in what it showed as u did it.
Non the less considering the reported avg exp in this case 77+ and the fact that he loses 20 out of 21 planes = 95% loss rate. I would say i do hafta wonder. I cant imagien tho the brit starts with good figther pilots that they are at that level as OP zeroes had. Ofc i could be wrong, and there can be many more factors involved that OP doesnt provide. Fatigue and so on.
Maybe OP can ask his opponent on those numbers and divulge more info, like both fatigue levels and that would help.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/27/2010 2:06:59 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 19

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 2:28:00 PM

Jaroen

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

Although a lot has been said by a lot of people it was stated by the designers it is working as designed.
After some penetrating questioning it was not quite explained how those odd results could occur.

But . . . I think it has very much to do with the skill ratings involved! Not only experience, plane quality and altitude differences. I've had some very good CAP results against Japanese Oscar armada's on top of my Hurricanes. Those Hurricane pilots have the defensive skill and this greatly reduces the effect of possible sweeper advantages. Even more so when those sweepers lack the air skill. The other way around my Hurricane pilots do reasonably good when sweeping even when on lower altitudes than the defending Oscars. Of course all things being equal (experience, air, defense and plane quality) it might help to have an altitude advantage but it certainly isn't much especially when plane performance is not optimal. Just make sure your pilots have a better air/defense skill!!!

So to have a more balanced explaination on the air battle from the original poster we need the relevant skill levels (air/defense) aside from experience.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 20

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 2:29:04 PM

Sardaukar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I tested this a bit in earlier thread and pilot experience & defensive skill are big factors and will offset altitude advantage. So if defender is more experienced, he will usually win the fight even when enemy has altitude advantage.

Hi Sardaukar,

I saw that test and agree ur conclusions in what it showed as u did it.
Non the less considering the reported avg exp in this case 77+ and the fact that he loses 20 out of 21 planes = 95% loss rate. I would say i do hafta wonder. I cant imagien tho the brit starts with good figther pilots that they are at that level as OP zeroes had. Ofc i could be wrong, and there can be many more factors involved that OP doesnt provide. Fatigue and so on.
Maybe OP can ask his opponent on those numbers and divulge more info, like both fatigue levels and that would help.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Yes, there are lots of other factors, example airplane statistics (Speed, MVR. DUR, Climb etc.). I agree that strato-sweep is bit stupid and would like to see it "nerfed" somewhat. Possible solution would be to make very high altitude band flying to produce lot more pilot and plane fatigue (as it would in real life).

Split CAP helps a bit, but house rules are about only thing that really helps. I like the restriction that "no sweeps above highest MVR band of plane", which prevents stratospheric flying and still gives edge to plane that historically was good high-altitude plane. Flying at 38500ft etc. all the time is just plain silly

. CAP could be set to any altitude. This way altitude advantage could still be there, but not with full force.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 8/27/2010 2:30:47 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 21

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 4:34:48 PM

Puhis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Flying at 38500ft etc. all the time is just plain silly . CAP could be set to any altitude. This way altitude advantage could still be there, but not with full force.

Why is 38500 ft silly? It's not even 12000 meters...

I think stratosphere CAP is almost as bad as strato sweep. For example Hurricane CAP at 32000 ft is just invincible, unless sweep flies higher...

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 22

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 5:14:09 PM

bilbow

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbatch729

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed
Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 36000 feet *
CAP engaged:
Kanoya Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
21 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810
Raid is overhead

I'm Mbatch729's opponent. I feel his pain. The screenie is of the group that did the deed prior to the sweep. From it's stats it's a pretty average group, mediocre leader, average experience. Pilot skills are air 67, defend 63. Indeed it was flying (in error) at extreme range without drop tanks.

I agree with Mark. There's a problem here.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill

(in reply to mbatch729)

Post #: 23

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 8:09:42 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I just want to point out that it first long was said by the responsible person everything is fine until we reached the point that the air team lead actually was admitting it would be kind of an exploit.

Castor,

I don't remember Elf saying it was an exploit. There are lots of threads and lots of posts so maybe I missed it. I remember him saying there were ways to counter it to lessen its effects. That and it was part of the deal - some planes are better at higher altitudes and that altitude really matters.

Early on IJ has better high altitude planes, later the Allies do. Historically sweeps went in high to try and dive on CAP. My first sweep went in at 25,000ft and was higher than CAP (forget their altitude). My second sweep at 25,000 but CAP was at 30,000. My third at 35,000... until CAP was flying at ~35,000 (max I think) and my sweeps were going in at 37,000 or 38,000 (whatever was max for them).

Finally we settled on a HR of 25,000 max (at first it was 30,000 but some significant models of my planes can't do that). This reduces the altitude issues, but why bother? Early on IJ had the advantage, later the Allies did, so why neuter that? I favor it just being part of the game and using all the tools to try and work through it.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 24

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/27/2010 8:44:25 PM

Czert

Posts: 255
Joined: 7/22/2006
Status: offline

Is here spoting chance afected by altitude ? I think IRL if we have two sweeps and one is at 10k and second at 30k, then 10k have much better chance of seeing upper bandints that oposite side ( trails in higher altitudes, and higher planes dont fly in sun forever :) ) . Yes, altitude gives you great advantage in combat, but you must spoot your enemies fist.
So, in effect, if lower sweep have plane with nice climb rate, it can make life harder for upper ones.

_____________________________

Do you chalenge me ?
http://czert1938.mybrute.com
Mod for one of best games ever made ?
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=1
Great space shooter.
http://www.neurohack.com/transcendence/index.html

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 25

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 8:57:41 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I just want to point out that it first long was said by the responsible person everything is fine until we reached the point that the air team lead actually was admitting it would be kind of an exploit.

Castor,

I don't remember Elf saying it was an exploit. There are lots of threads and lots of posts so maybe I missed it. I remember him saying there were ways to counter it to lessen its effects. That and it was part of the deal - some planes are better at higher altitudes and that altitude really matters.

Early on IJ has better high altitude planes, later the Allies do. Historically sweeps went in high to try and dive on CAP. My first sweep went in at 25,000ft and was higher than CAP (forget their altitude). My second sweep at 25,000 but CAP was at 30,000. My third at 35,000... until CAP was flying at ~35,000 (max I think) and my sweeps were going in at 37,000 or 38,000 (whatever was max for them).

Finally we settled on a HR of 25,000 max (at first it was 30,000 but some significant models of my planes can't do that). This reduces the altitude issues, but why bother? Early on IJ had the advantage, later the Allies did, so why neuter that? I favor it just being part of the game and using all the tools to try and work through it.

After looong discussions about it being right or wrong we came to the point of total amazement when TheElf posted in one of the threads about Sputnik sweeps saying that "people will always find a way to exploit the engine and Sputnik sweeps is one way to do it" ... that�s not a quote, just going from memory, but he clearly said it was an exploit. He also gave some advise about hrs in that matter. That was the point where I was hoping to see something changed. Still hoping...

perhaps I can dig out that post...

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 26

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 9:36:52 AM

witpqs

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

I remember that post but I interpreted it differently. He said a lot else in that discussion and in context of all of it I didn't (and don't) see that as saying it's broke.

If you focus only on that statement you might get that impression, though.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 27

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 11:36:42 AM

Sardaukar

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

The Elf definitely didn't say it's broken. He said that people will always find ways to exploit game system.

There is reason why fighter pilots say "energy is life". Energy comes in 2 forms, kinetic and potential, former is speed, latter is altitude. Those 2 things were the most important things in Pacific air engagement. Maneuverability was the least important thing for US fighters, while Japanese were maximized for it. And we know who came out of that as winner.

It would be folly to totally take out altitude advantage, because with speed advantage those we the 2 major factors deciding at least the beginning of the air combat.

If one is unwilling or unable to change the style one conducts the air operations, one will always be at disadvantage with how air combat in game is conducted. Like, do you absolutely have to have CAP up against high-altitude sweep consisting of better planes and pilots? Especially if outnumbered?

One should pick the fights that matter, because that's how it was historically done. If base is important enough to be defended by 1 fighter group, it's important enough to be defended by 2. Or more. Numbers matter a lot and with numbers come other tactical solutions like split CAP etc. Check your pilot skills, pull back inexperienced units and train them. Rest your air units and let enemy sweep empty air, bring in AA units to defend against bombers, turn on CAP after enemy has gotten frustrated about empty sweeps. There is lot of things that can be done.

And if playing against opponent who doesn't want common sense to rule with some house rules, what can I say. There is always ways to "game the engine" and always people willing to do that, no matter what would be deemed realistic.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 28

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 12:51:33 PM

CapAndGown

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

This is silly. All these people defend the system as being perfectly ok and then turn around and suggest using house rules. No house rules are needed if the system is just fine, gang. We have house rules about political points and restricted units because the system doesn't account for walking across national borders. We have house rules about strategic bombing in China because the supply system, when it comes to the Chinese, does not reflect reality. Most of the games in the AAR section now have house rules about max altitude. If that doesn't tell you something is wrong, well, I give up.

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 8/28/2010 12:53:00 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 29

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 8/28/2010 12:57:12 PM

Terminus