RE: 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

RE: 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 >> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/4/2010 5:20:55 PM

Sardaukar

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

There is a reason why I suggested best MVR band and no higher.

Second highest can be very high, indeed.

_____________________________

"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 castor troy)

Post #: 181

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/4/2010 8:39:07 PM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks much for the post.

You mentioned only sweeps, but how about CAP - should the the same rule be applied? Based upon your essay it seems that it should (apply to CAP also).

The reasoning for treating CAP the same way is sound. ie. it doesn't matter whether you are offensive or defensive, Aircraft typically did not operate regularly at their Max altitude. It may actually be detrimental to CAP to set higher and higher patrol altitudes.

If you consider that CAP, or any fighter force is more effective with numerical superiority then it follows that you would want a strong contiguous CAP to the max extent possible. As coded though only a portion of allotted CAP will be airborne. Another portion will be in a ready or refueling rearming status, and another portion might be made available in a pinch at some delay. If you want your CAP to "get together" before the enemy raid arrives, it then follows that a medium altitude would be better as given an allotted time it would be more likely that they would join the airborne CAP if they had a shorter (lower altitude) distance to travel.

Besides Airborne CAP at 15k' being vectored by radar to a Sweep or raid at 23k' only have 8k' to climb to be Co-Alt. Assuming a 2k'/min ROC that would take 8 minutes. So if Radar is present, I'm not worried about having enough time.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 182

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/4/2010 9:28:35 PM

witpqs

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

Thanks.

But following this thread and the other 'diving' thread as one I am starting to wonder if maneuver bands is the way to go at all because of how high that still sets the max for many planes.

Months ago my opponent wanted to impose a limit and we started at 30k then went to 25k. Now after digesting this discussion I feel like we should pick something like 15k or 20k for sweep and CAP, but allow bombers to go higher if desired because CAP will rise to them anyway. Frankly, one reason we settled on a flat altitude instead of a band reference is playability. That's still a factor, but now I've become convinced that a band reference, while mostly sound, just has too many holes (planes with very high bands).

EDIT to Ask: What is the altitude that fighter pilots officially go on oxygen? Perhaps we should use that altitude?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/4/2010 9:39:25 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 183

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/4/2010 10:55:55 PM

Lrfss

Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

@TheElf

2. Look down with eyeballs is even less effective than look down with radar. Eyeballs can't pick up doppler. Sure, you can see canopy glint, but only at specific positions relative to the sun and without cloud cover.

According to Fire in the Sky and other works I'm sure, trained pilots had a knack for detecting the slightest movements some even at great distances.

There's an extensive literature on visual perception. It's nowhere near as good as you think, despite retinal mechanisms producing hyper-acuity. The biggest problem is that good vision is limited to an apex angle of about 15 degrees. To get broader coverage, the eye moves in saccades 5-50 times a second. To ensure that retinal neurones don't fatigue--which they do rapidly--the eye also vibrates from side to side a small amount at about 50 Hz. In operations research studies, we model visual target acquisition as 30 glimpses a second, each with an apex angle of 15 degrees. That's about 0.4% of the sphere around the observer 30 times a second. Head movements occur if the gaze shift is greater than about 20 degrees. To detect motion you have to be looking at it when it moves, and the motion during the fixation has to be large enough that the image moves on the retina. Motion against a non-co-moving background is detected by fixating on the background and observing the image movement.

Holy crap...

OMG, now this is funny as heck kinda stuff now... I vote for a new section in the AE forum called something like "AE's Top Ten Hit's" or something which could at this rate be updated daily if not hourly! LOL!

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 184

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/5/2010 5:15:32 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

@TheElf

Thanks for the clarification.

Theoretically, there was a similar advantage associated with having a faster top speed at any given altitude.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 185

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/7/2010 5:14:29 PM

Sly

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline

To Castor Toy - about High altitude figters sweeps
I read your previous posts, about never ending dives. You may have right. Air Combat system is really good (point to Elf) with one exception. This is the situation wehn attacking figters flies max altitude sweeps and defending figters cant even reach this altitude. Oscars formation on 38500 feet altitude sweeps Hurricanes base. Hurricanes CAP is on 20000 feet. Air combat formula split both formation on separate flghts. After initial Oscars dive some of portion of Hurricanes CAP arrives on battlefield. Even if Combat System 'wants' give them some tactical advantage and outclimb Oscars, it does not matter because max ciling alt is 36000 feet. It would be better then Hurricanes dont ever climb, its clear at the start.
To resolve this problem in my game i have hous rule: on very high alt (<31000) either side cant set figters higher then half max altidude rounded up. Oscar Max altitude is 38500ft, so 7500 on very high altitude band :2= 3750, rounded up= 4000. So Oscars can be set on 35000 ft alt (3100+4000). Of course Oscars still can dive some Hurricanes but another Hurricanes have some chance to outclimb some Oscars. Game is more balanced.
You may tried this rule if you want and give some suggestions

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 186

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/7/2010 6:40:41 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sly

To Castor Toy - about High altitude figters sweeps
I read your previous posts, about never ending dives. You may have right. Air Combat system is really good (point to Elf) with one exception. This is the situation wehn attacking figters flies max altitude sweeps and defending figters cant even reach this altitude. Oscars formation on 38500 feet altitude sweeps Hurricanes base. Hurricanes CAP is on 20000 feet. Air combat formula split both formation on separate flghts. After initial Oscars dive some of portion of Hurricanes CAP arrives on battlefield.� Even if Combat System� 'wants' give them some tactical advantage and outclimb Oscars, it does not matter because max ciling alt is 36000 feet. It would be better then Hurricanes dont ever climb, its clear at the start.
To resolve this problem in my game i have hous rule: on very high alt (<31000) either side cant set figters higher then half max altidude rounded up. Oscar Max altitude is 38500ft, so 7500 on very high altitude band :2= 3750, rounded up= 4000. So Oscars can be set on 35000 ft alt (3100+4000). Of course Oscars still can dive some Hurricanes but another Hurricanes have some chance to outclimb some Oscars. Game is more balanced.
You may tried this rule if you want and give some suggestions

The climb rates for WWII propellor-driven aircraft weren't that great. About 1950 ft/min for the F4F-4 at sea-level to the maximum altitude the supercharger could maintain the pressure and linearly down from there to 100 ft/min at about 34000 ft. The Hurricane climbed a bit faster. Pace theElf, that meant it took eight or so minutes from launch to 20000 feet, and perhaps another fifteen or twenty or so to get to 36000 ft. So if a Hurricane could climb faster than the Oscar, it had plenty of time to take advantage of it before it ran out of altitude.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sly)

Post #: 187

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/7/2010 7:50:31 PM

Sly

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline

You have right if the Oscars flights flies in the game below 36000 ft - max alt for Hurricanes.
When the Oscars flies at 38500 ft alt even if efectiv raid detection give defending player initiativ (opportunity to outclimb enemy fighters) it doesnt metter, Hurricanes simply cant reach 38500 ft altitude. During combat resolution phase i saw many times messege: 4xHurricanes arrives from CAP climbing to 38500 ft (or similar). If they simply cant ever reach this altitude better they shuld stay at dedicated altitude lets say 20.000ft. Hurricanes may have chance to avoid combat in disadventage situation. So in general air combat system works good and is balanced.
But in extremaly service celling situation - like I described - push defenders fighters on extreme altitude without chance to outclimb (bounce) enemy. So in this case Castor has right - dive never ends. But if you bring Oscars and Hurricanes on altitude which both sides can reach (between 20000-35000 ft) game is more balanced.
At least in my opinion.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 188

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/9/2010 4:19:23 PM

witpqs

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

Elf,

Bump

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks.

But following this thread and the other 'diving' thread as one I am starting to wonder if maneuver bands is the way to go at all because of how high that still sets the max for many planes.

Months ago my opponent wanted to impose a limit and we started at 30k then went to 25k. Now after digesting this discussion I feel like we should pick something like 15k or 20k for sweep and CAP, but allow bombers to go higher if desired because CAP will rise to them anyway. Frankly, one reason we settled on a flat altitude instead of a band reference is playability. That's still a factor, but now I've become convinced that a band reference, while mostly sound, just has too many holes (planes with very high bands).

EDIT to Ask: What is the altitude that fighter pilots officially go on oxygen? Perhaps we should use that altitude?

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 189

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/9/2010 5:28:23 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Elf,

Bump

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks.

But following this thread and the other 'diving' thread as one I am starting to wonder if maneuver bands is the way to go at all because of how high that still sets the max for many planes.

Months ago my opponent wanted to impose a limit and we started at 30k then went to 25k. Now after digesting this discussion I feel like we should pick something like 15k or 20k for sweep and CAP, but allow bombers to go higher if desired because CAP will rise to them anyway. Frankly, one reason we settled on a flat altitude instead of a band reference is playability. That's still a factor, but now I've become convinced that a band reference, while mostly sound, just has too many holes (planes with very high bands).

EDIT to Ask: What is the altitude that fighter pilots officially go on oxygen? Perhaps we should use that altitude?

10k'...any higher and risk of oxygen deprivation bad stuff outweighs the relative "comfort" of not wearing a mask...

PS - all bets are off in "Top Gun" land...Goose and Mav were seemingly immune to the effects...

_____________________________

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.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 190

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/9/2010 5:42:21 PM

Puhis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

PS - all bets are off in "Top Gun" land...Goose and Mav were seemingly immune to the effects...

Well, obviously they were the best of the best of the best!!!

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)

Post #: 191

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/9/2010 6:36:28 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

PS - all bets are off in "Top Gun" land...Goose and Mav were seemingly immune to the effects...

Well, obviously they were the best of the best of the best!!!

Yeah, but Will Smith in Men in Black was recruited from "The Best of The Best of The Best!"

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 192

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/9/2010 7:20:40 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

PS - all bets are off in "Top Gun" land...Goose and Mav were seemingly immune to the effects...

Well, obviously they were the best of the best of the best!!!

Yeah, but Will Smith in Men in Black was recruited from "The Best of The Best of The Best!"

did you mean "Independence Day"? oops, wait...

_____________________________

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.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 193

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 4:39:50 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Elf,

Bump

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks.

But following this thread and the other 'diving' thread as one I am starting to wonder if maneuver bands is the way to go at all because of how high that still sets the max for many planes.

Months ago my opponent wanted to impose a limit and we started at 30k then went to 25k. Now after digesting this discussion I feel like we should pick something like 15k or 20k for sweep and CAP, but allow bombers to go higher if desired because CAP will rise to them anyway. Frankly, one reason we settled on a flat altitude instead of a band reference is playability. That's still a factor, but now I've become convinced that a band reference, while mostly sound, just has too many holes (planes with very high bands).

EDIT to Ask: What is the altitude that fighter pilots officially go on oxygen? Perhaps we should use that altitude?

Today we go on oxygen from takeoff to landing, technically. We have all sorts of ways to monitor ourselves for Hypoxia, and all Cabin's are pressurized to a certain degree.

Back in the day, it depended on the aircraft, and on the individual pilot. Up to 10k' with no conditioning you can operate free from concern of O2 starvation. Up to 14k' even if the pilot was accustomed to doing so like many of the IJ pilots. Some could go higher, but that was a matter of acclimation and regular occurrence, but it was a dangerous game. As a rule, were we to make one for WitP, I would use 14k' as the cut off.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 194

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 5:20:28 AM

witpqs

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

OK. In the interest of round increments (multiples of 5k mean fewer mouse-clicks), I propose 15,000ft altitude restriction. From there, we let the game engine do things. How about this as a draft:

quote:

- No fighters or fighter-bombers set to an altitude above 15,000ft - except for Recon missions. Other aircraft may be set to any altitude (CAP will always rise to meet them if appropriate anyway).

I would like to hear any comments that people have. I intend to propose this for my next PBM (current opponent might like it too).

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 195

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 5:34:56 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

witpqs this depends on the time of war. 15k is a bit low if you don�t want to nerf the later war planes, maybe starting with the P38.

From the stats some planes are designed into the game to practically rely on the dive for success, always considering the pilot stats are similar.

I still believe that the only improvement could be made through limiting the high alt performance from game perspective.

CT is right when he says that reducing the max alt to best or 2nd best mvr band only results in similar performance differences on a bit lower alt,
though specifically on the sweep vs. CAP this could have a positive effect.

As I see it there is not really any HR needed as long as you don�t force yourself and your opponent into an altitude spiral. As soon as you compare
plane stats and notice your opponents planes outclass you on the altitude game you stay low, problem solved.

Some more noticable negative effects on high altitude missions may be handy but I am still at loss how such a thing could be implemented
without reducing playability or adding new issues.
The most promising is still fatigue (higher op losses, worse combat performance) or range restricitons, but both could could have negative influence on other game aspects.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 196

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 10:11:39 AM

castor troy

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

The problem with staying low for me is still this message all the time: "xy squadron climbing to 38500ft to intercept". So even if I would set the fighters to 5000ft, they would still try to scramble to the incoming strike. And that�s where the problem starts for me, as soon as they try to do that, they get bounced and bounced and bounced. At least in my PBEM and it happens for both sides. My P-38 are diving on his Oscars, his Oscars are diving on my Hurricanes.

Again, I�ve long accepted that it�s an exploit and I would love to nail this with a hr we could live with but it�s hard for me to see any of the suggested hrs really working (not that I wouldn�t have experimented with suggested hrs or tips on how things can be solved). We still get into the altitude spiral because the dive is so powerful. When my P-38 get a 1:1 or 2:1 without the dive and achieve a 10:1 with the dive then what are you going to try? Forget the 40000ft sweeps, but if the enemy is at 10000ft, what am I going to try? Coming in at 11100ft at least, to get the dive. If you go with unlimited airframes then I don�t have a problem throwing away P-38 at 1:1 against Zekes, problem is the enemy is producing a couple of hundred fighters, while I�m getting 20 P-38G. I just can�t afford to lose my P-38 at a 1:1 or 2:1 rate against Oscars or Zeroes.

Going high and higher should be combined with a couple of REAL disadvantages (like super high fat or far higher op losses) so that you�ve got to make a trade off and have to really think about the alt you attack. Is my opponent keeping his Cap at 10000ft? Ok, shouldn�t be a problem to go in at 15000ft. But what if his fighters are waiting at 17000ft? Ok, lets try it at 20000ft, but that�s already a tradeoff. The enemy is at 20000ft and his fighters really suffer from doing Cap like this? Mine are well rested and the stats of the attacking aircraft are superior, let�s do a sweep at 23000ft this single time.

Doing sweeps at 39000ft? You are able to do them but it should HURT you.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 197

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 10:26:28 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

I think you are misunderstanding the "xy squadron climbing to 38500ft to intercept" message though.
Sure, they climb. But "climbing to x" is not equal to "reaching x".

And except for if I do something wrong, am outnumbered or have a severe disadvantage in pilot quality
I never get bounced and bounced and bounced.
But it seems we are playing different games sometimes.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 198

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 10:37:19 AM

Puhis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Going high and higher should be combined with a couple of REAL disadvantages (like super high fat or far higher op losses) so that you�ve got to make a trade off and have to really think about the alt you attack. Is my opponent keeping his Cap at 10000ft? Ok, shouldn�t be a problem to go in at 15000ft. But what if his fighters are waiting at 17000ft? Ok, lets try it at 20000ft, but that�s already a tradeoff. The enemy is at 20000ft and his fighters really suffer from doing Cap like this? Mine are well rested and the stats of the attacking aircraft are superior, let�s do a sweep at 23000ft this single time.

Doing sweeps at 39000ft? You are able to do them but it should HURT you.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe I'm a poor player and I can't use my planes properly, but I see no reason to fly at 15k when my opponent is flying at 32k. If I'm higher, I win. If I'm lower, I lose.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 199

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 10:55:27 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Going high and higher should be combined with a couple of REAL disadvantages (like super high fat or far higher op losses) so that you�ve got to make a trade off and have to really think about the alt you attack. Is my opponent keeping his Cap at 10000ft? Ok, shouldn�t be a problem to go in at 15000ft. But what if his fighters are waiting at 17000ft? Ok, lets try it at 20000ft, but that�s already a tradeoff. The enemy is at 20000ft and his fighters really suffer from doing Cap like this? Mine are well rested and the stats of the attacking aircraft are superior, let�s do a sweep at 23000ft this single time.

Doing sweeps at 39000ft? You are able to do them but it should HURT you.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe I'm a poor player and I can't use my planes properly, but I see no reason to fly at 15k when my opponent is flying at 32k. If I'm higher, I win. If I'm lower, I lose.

What sense does this make when the opposing airframe has a higher ceiling than yours?
You might get a good result for one turn (for whatever this is worth) and then the opponent adapts and
you are in the same situation as before.

So the logical solution would be to cope with the situation as if you have already lost the altitude game, no?

Edit: Its not that I don�t agree flying vhigh alt should have certain drawbacks. The difficulty is to find
some that don�t negatively influence gameplay or other parts of the game.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 9/10/2010 11:00:03 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 200

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 12:13:50 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I think you are misunderstanding the "xy squadron climbing to 38500ft to intercept" message though.
Sure, they climb. But "climbing to x" is not equal to "reaching x".

And except for if I do something wrong, am outnumbered or have a severe disadvantage in pilot quality
I never get bounced and bounced and bounced.
But it seems we are playing different games sometimes.

obviously, not sometimes but most times though

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 201

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/10/2010 6:55:57 PM

Sly

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline

I have similar feelings about "X fighters climbing to 38500ft to intercept" message as you.
Having a Hurricanes against Oscars you can set them at dedicated altitude about 15000- 20000ft.
The opponent flying above is not the problem because effectiv detection can scramble Hurri's above Oscars.
Problem is then the Oscars flies above and on altitude that Hurri's even cant rech, beyond max sevice ceiling, so in the game 38500Ft. Combat system give them initiativ set on the highest available altitude and then diving massacre.
It would be GREAT if combat system BEFORE scramble checked opponents altitude. When there is a chance to reach that altitude or above - scramble as it is now.
But then when attacking figters flies above and beyond max service ceiling defending fighters they should scramble to a dedicated altitude and "stay in formation on 15000ft" altitude obtaining some defensive bonus. Of course defenders fighter could still be dived (on 15000ft alt) but successive portions of CAPs would have a better chance to dive attacking figters. The idea is make high swedping attacks more balanced.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 202

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/11/2010 7:36:29 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

I don't want to start another flame war, but I suspect the issue is the balance of factors. Back in the 1970s, we--not just me, I knew systems engineers at the aircraft contractors were doing this--were trying to come up with estimation models for the exchange rates between aircraft models in combat. This was before the days of Top Gun, so we didn't have really good current data, and we had to make do with combat statistics and whatever came out of tests. This was the days of over-the-top air battle models, and what we were doing was coming up with parameter values for those models. Unfortunately, when I describe those models as 'over-the-top', I'm refering to their opacity when you tried to figure out the cause and effect relationships that produced some of the weird results.

This was more than theoretically important. Those battle models produced the results that led to mistakes like fighter aircraft without gun armament and the F-111B. I've seen the analysis that led to the F-111B. We're lucky the USN didn't end up with prop-driven missile-armed fighter aircraft that optimised loiter time at the cost of all the characteristics a modern fighter pilot would deem critical.

Ever play Tobruk? The board game version. That was the direct commercialisation of a code used to analyse tanks during the 1950s and 60s. It modelled the tank-versus-tank engagement by considering each round fired, assessing where on the target it hit, and the resulting terminal ballistics. It was the armoured equivalent of the air battle model and produced just as weird results.

This discussion takes me back to those days. There's a detailed engagement model that's producing rather opaque results. As usual in those models, the best results are produced by turning the knobs to their limits. Either we define house rules to enforce reasonable behaviour

, or we make the models even more complex and opaque

, or we back off on the hardware realism and introduce some higher-level realism so that people stop optimising their knob settings and instead play the game

.

< Message edited by herwin -- 9/11/2010 11:07:54 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Sly)

Post #: 203

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/12/2010 9:24:04 PM

Sly

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline

So things aren't so simply, can say.
I dont have any programming experience but understand that one check doesn't fix the system.
Well Harry, if i may say, You have such experience so better i will stay by haus rules for now

waiting for higher level realism system .
Eventually I choose to play a strategic game not simulator and for now WitP AE is the best strategic level game which I know

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 204

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/15/2010 8:34:33 PM

KenchiSulla

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

It limits planes that are less powerful in HP at higher altitude to fly at max 20.000 feet. I do however agree about planes that get their 2nd best man. band in the last column. They will on top of the foodchain so to speak. How about a hard limit to 32k for those?

_____________________________

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 castor troy)

Post #: 205

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/16/2010 8:26:00 AM

castor troy

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

Not that people would think I�m ignoring everything what is posted and what you could do to stop players from exploiting the game engine (a well working or not is up to everyone himself) with ceiling sweeps, I have done some tests with what people suggest.

And it does not work for me. Why? Because as soon as land based radar is working in the game (it obviously isn�t, never got any spotting with dozens of land based radar sets in my PBEM and we�re in mid 43 already - it�s looked at by the devs anyway) then you will soon find out that Cap will suddenly trump sweeps, while we had sweeps trump Cap with our strato sweeps that get the dive (the dive is still for me the number one factor, nothing is as powerful). So how did I test this? Easy, just put a TF with air search radar into a base hex and fly your sweeps against a Cap, with both sides being set to their second best man band. A hr like this usually means the fighters aren�t allowed to fly at their ceiling (except aircraft like the P-47, but hey, that would be "exploiting" the routine again, so instead of hoping for a change, you have to either exploit the game or exclude aircraft like the P-47 from the hr because they would again be allowed to fly at 42000ft).

Now what happens with working radar? You actually SPOT enemy raids. Means you�ve most often got enough time to position your fighters high enough (this does the game for you and due to the fact that raids usually are detected HIGHER than they actually are, your Cap is sent to the HIGHER alt then the raid actually is). Voila, you now have a sweep limited to the second best man band, let�s say 20000ft, got your Cap at the second best alt band (let�s say 20000ft too) and where does your Cap end up with a working radar? At 25000ft at least probably, getting the dive... boom... boom... boom...

While this hr is acceptable for some people, I didn�t really like it because I wasn�t convinced about it but with the recent toying around that supported what I�ve already thought makes this hr(s) not acceptable at all for me because it just swaps the dive from the ceiling sweeps to the radar supported Cap when you end up somewhere between 15 and 25000ft and the Cap can go higher (which every fighter on the map can I guess). So as soon as landbased radar actually works, this hr becomes pretty problematic I guess.

_____________________________

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 206

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/16/2010 1:48:16 PM

USSAmerica

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

So, CT, from your testing, do you think that once the land based radar is fixed and working, the "Strato Sweeps" will be somewhat balanced by more effective CAP? Or, do you think Strato Sweeps will still be too powerful?

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 207

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/16/2010 3:47:08 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

So, CT, from your testing, do you think that once the land based radar is fixed and working, the "Strato Sweeps" will be somewhat balanced by more effective CAP?� Or, do you think Strato Sweeps will still be too powerful?

it�s neither the strato sweep nor the Cap, it�s purely the alt in every case and the alt results in the dive (in my opinion, other people�s opinions are different, even though my P-38 get 10:1 kills WITH the dive and 2:1 at best without the dive - against the same enemy). The strato sweeps can�t be cured by working radar because as long as the strato sweeper can go higher than the Cap, it doesn�t matter if the radar works or not because (in theory, in WITP they even got the bounce if the sweep was flying higher than the Cap could even reach), the Cap can�t reach the strato sweep anyway. That�s why I say I think that IF radar is going to work and IF you use the hr about man bands then you will end up with the Cap being HIGHER than the sweep, therefore reversing the situation of the stratosweeps you had without a hr, means now that the raids are spotted, the sweeps forced to fly below their ceiling and ending up lower than the Cap�s ceiling, the Cap now gets up in a higher position now DIVING on the enemy. At least that�s what is happening head to head when I�ve used TFs to provide air search radar for one of my bases with Cap.

This wasn�t just a test of the proposed hrs but also if I can use naval based radar to aid bases, which works just fine. It also proved (to me) that land based radar isn�t working (also supported by 1.5 years gametime in my PBEM). So if you tie your sweeps to an alt lower than the ceiling of the Cap, then the radar will usually put the Cap higher than the sweep, reversing in what we see during strato sweeps with the Cap being the winnner in 9 out of 10 times due to getting the dive. Again, this is happening in MY version of the game. Others of course have never seen this nor have they ever seen the never ending dive. My opponent and me are experiencing this quite a lot, no matter how many times we try all the suggestions of what works to counter ceiling attacks.

But hey, it was said (and accepted by me) that ceiling sweeps are exploiting the engine, so it�s our fault and not of the game, at least that�s what the devs are thinking. At least that�s a huge leap forward because it was said for months that everything would be absolutely fine. Guess it�s not, or how could you exploit it then? What I would like to have is a routine that forces me to do what they�ve done in real life. As it is now, it�s all about the dive and none of the hrs are ok with me, especially not if radar is going to work at some point.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/16/2010 3:51:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 208

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/16/2010 4:53:46 PM

Jaroen

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

I think most of us would prefer a game model where pilots and planes would fly at historical altitudes. This would hurt the Japanese later in the war because of advanced oxygen/heating/pressurisation technology (pilot tech) and less advanced engine/fuel technology (plane tech). But we'd accept the plane stats and consequences when historically correct. It's just something the Japanese had to deal with historically and so should the player.

So how come (some) players find unhistorical altitudes to be the only way to compete? My thinking is:
1. Low(er) pilot skills can perhaps be compensated by a big altitude advantage giving the initiative/surprise (= dive).
2. To counter this advantage the other player chooses to do the same thing.

BTW: I personally think from the examples shown that other factors besides altitude differences are a major cause for the 'dives'. In my experience against the AI it simple doesn't pay to fly high. But that's mainly flying against high experience Japanese pilots who quickly turn my dives, I do get those sometimes, into a normal engagement. Not nice against Jap aces. Fatigue already is bad and I've seen no benefit. But . . . all things being equal (like pilot skills) such an altitude advantage would turn up eventually.

I believe we don't really like that altitude chase since it turns out to be somewhat ridiculous, maybe. And we don't like to look at the altitude bands in an abstract sense. But what can be implemented/modelled in AE? What was the situation historically? How come the pilots/planes were usually operating on a low to middle altitude at the PTO? There certainly was an altitude advantage, so why didn't they always fly at maximum operation ceiling?
1. Oxygen + low temperature was a big issue. It was impossible/uncomfortable to fly for long periods higher than say 15.000 ft.
2. Engine performance fell down dramatically around 18.000 - 21.000 ft.
3. Navigation was hard and required lower altitudes to determine targets and bases.
4. Targeting thus necessitated low (to 7.000 ft.) to middle (max. 21.000 ft.) altitudes for tactical strikes.
5. These strikes were protected by fighters normally flying only slightly higher.
6. CAPs were small or non-existent and only fighting incoming bombers to save precious resources.
7. Warning times were short and offered only little time to gain altitude.
8. All this changed a lot with the later (past mid '43) high performance machines, better cockpit environments and much improved resources.

All the player can influence would be the resource management I'd say, allowing for (much) higher CAP density.

So what could perhaps be modelled into the game to influence players to do a different altitude selection?
1. As suggested before, a (very) high fatigue increase when flying over 15.000 feet.
2. Failing assault (ground, airfield and port) strikes when flying higher (as in: increased chance for not finding a target).
3. Even more decreased effectiveness of bombing when flying higher or more increased efficiency on low altitudes.

I personally think all this is modelled in some way already. Plane performance is already part of altitude equation and fatigue issues are also implemented. But perhaps stronger fatigue effects will model the historical situation better. Bombing effectiveness doesn't help with fighters flying CAPs/Sweeps but heavy fatigue will. Newer planes with good high altitude performance should be less fatiguing than the older ones which does result in an altitude advantage by new machines over older aircraft.

BTW: When flying on historical altitudes players will of course still experience that 'dive' message!!! It signifies initiative and surprise which will ususally be acquired by the better pilot (air skill) against defensively failing pilots (defensive skill) all other things being equal. That message is NOT tied to altitude advantage and might very well be on the side of a lower flying pilot.

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 209

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 1:17:27 AM

TheElf

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

After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database. We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator. You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive. Of course we'll test it first...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Jaroen)

Post #: 210