Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily.

Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress.

quote:


Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits.

Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about.

Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work.
The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM.

As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

looking at this result posted by rader, and a bombardment mission posted by someone ages ago (with artillery) - both of them got ridiculous results...

let's just agree (and yes, I know some people defend every bit of the game no matter whether it has any "common sense" involved or not) that the engine can't cope with a few possible scenarios that one can create if one exploits the engine.... - that 20,000 Japanese get killed in a artillery bombardment is equally, shall we say, "surprising" as is this bombing result.... - but B-29s never saw this mission type executed! and anyone who now quotes the Panzer-Lehr should mention the number of bombers involved in this attack and should tell me that the game engine was specifically modeled to reproduce this mission (just like the Doolittle raid eh?)

so I believe as long as you don't "overdo" the engine and its capabilities the game will provide you with somewhat realistic results....
but all rader-games are far from reality.... - so if both players agree to a "away from any sort of reality" game then they must expect odd outcomes....
-just like the bombardment mission with arty in the jungle hex - it involved 100,000 troops and some 1500 guns or so on either side...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily.

Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress.

quote:


Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits.

Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about.

Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work.
The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM.

As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed.

Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above.

And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules.

And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above.

And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules.

And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic.

Youre already using "ironman" and "historical" in the same sentence.
THINK before you write please.

That also applies to your other statement. I love playing WitP AE, whether PBEM or AI does not matter much,
I just don´t have time for both and have the luck of good opponents.

Noone says the game is perfect, all agree that you have to implement HRs on certain aspects to prevent
a human player from exploiting extremes, everybody is aware that you have to be careful not to game the
AI to enjoy a fun game.

But thats it, not more not less. There are extremely few bugs left, those that are are either bearable or
easy to avoid. This is because of people who love the game, and work on it without expecting money in return.

I have not a whimp of patience for whiners who try to sell the same BS over and over again
without understanding even the basic concepts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical
AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot
help you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical
AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot
help you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thanks for the details!

Actually, where were at it, did you see any 4eng low level ground strikes? Just interested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

May I inquire what house rules y'all use to prevent going overboard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

This is from Jap point of view and there are of course balancing issues to consider as well, but anyway, my advice would be to:
Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing
Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing

quote:



Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

In this game you can't destroy a squad before all squads in a unit has been damaged first.
So each unit efficiently requires 2 hits before being destroyed; disabling them is just as efficient since there is no time to repair them before the battles to come.
Since most of these troops would be inside bunkers or caves during attacks I hardly see how luck has anything to do with it. It's a miracle that the shooters found a parade they could decimate me thinks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Just to top in my 2 c:

Here's a result of Andy's last bombing run against Christmas Island - the worlds largest atoll with 6 forts!

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I posted my observation a few times a number of months ago. It is my strong suspicion that performance is reasonable up to roughly pilot skill level 70. Then, as pilots gain skill above 70 the attack performance is simply too high. This applies to:

(Including Low in all variants listed below)
Naval attack (including torpedo)
ASW
Ground attack
Airfield attack
Maybe Port attack, but I have seen fewer so it is difficult to judge
Regarding the various strategic attacks (city, refinery, etc.), I have seen too few to judge.

It would be a mistake to only try to "nerf" the various ground attacks. The biggest issue seems to be to reduce performance benefit for skill levels above 70, making it more of diminishing returns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

No idea how much pilot skill affects hit ratio, I guess it would be a pilots ground attack rating that counted the mosy here. The CAG attacking Christmas Island were probably good pilots but ground attack is hardly their primary skill.

6 forts is more than what Iwo Jima had..Allies spent weeks using a much bigger air / sea bombardment force to attempt to suppress a much smaller target than Christmas Island. When soldiers watched major bombardments they were alwas convinced nothing could survive only to learn quite the opposite when they landed.

What hasn't been mentioned here is thay disruption levels for xx tens of thousands of troops also is raised by 20-40%.
The entire division attacked has 56% disruption now.

I actually think rough terrain offers adequate protection in game, but I also think that 6 fort level should provide the same.
Generalising is difficult though...

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Just to top in my 2 c:

Here's a result of Andy's last bombing run against Christmas Island - the worlds largest atoll with 6 forts!

Morning Air attack on 54th Division, at 174,141 (Christmas Island)
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 36 minutes

Allied aircraft
Avenger II x 26
Barracuda II x 18
Corsair II x 27
Hellcat I x 8
F4U-1A Corsair x 154
F6F-3 Hellcat x 309
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 162
TBF-1 Avenger x 7
TBM-1C Avenger x 213

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 3 damaged
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak
TBM-1C Avenger: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
480 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Let's see...

Consider that, in game:

> One Avenger II, TBF-1, and TBM-1C each carries a payload of 1000 lbs (500 x 2)
> One Barracuda II carries a payload of 1000 lbs (500 x 2)
> One Corsair II and F4U-1A each carries 1000 lbs (1000 x 1)
> One SB2C-1C Helldiver carries a payload of 1500 lbs (1 x 1000, 2 x 250)
> The Hellcat Is/F6F-3 Hellcats carry just bullets - again, in game

*** Note that the real-world maximum payloads for these aircraft were higher than these listed figures, particularly in the case of the Corsairs, which could carry a pair of thousand-pounders plus eight 5 inch rockets.


In the raid, there were:

> 246 Avengers (492 bombs dropped, 246,000 lbs of ordnance)
> 18 Barracudas (36 bombs dropped, 18,000 lbs of ordnance)
> 181 Corsairs (181 bombs dropped, 181,000 lbs of ordnance)
> 162 Helldivers (486 bombs dropped, 243,000 lbs of ordnance)
> 317 Hellcats (Lots-n-lots of .5s fired if they strafed at all)

In this situation we have 607 aircraft dropping 1,195 bombs weighing 688,000 lbs - or 344 tons. Keep in mind also this isn't a carpet bombing mission; each of these planes is capable of picking their target when delivering their payloads, so each individual bomb released is much more likely to have an impact, so to speak. Also, doesn't FoW kick in when Combat Reports determine the butcher's bill? The actual casualties could be lower, or higher, than what's shown.

I dunno. I'm inclined to think that, even when considering the 6 forts, PzB's boys got off relatively easy, considering the types and sheer number of planes bringing the smackdown.



< Message edited by Treetop64 -- 11/2/2011 11:59:48 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)