RE: another disaster

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: another disaster

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: another disaster

Page: << < prev 215 216 [217] 218 219 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:38:48 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

I have to say the last few massive air battles in this game seem like they're exposing core game engine bugs more than anything else.

Were I you I'd be trying to get a patch out of Tech Support and rewind the clock until at least the day before your big CV battle (leaving the CVE devastation as a more arguably "fair" outcome).

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6481

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:46:03 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Hakodate is a level 9 AF, with 9 forts and 180 Flak guns (14 Coastal Arty AA regiments plus all the USAFF and USN base forces i have there).
No oversstacking penalities.
My squadrons settings were the following:

500 Hellcats-5 at 20,000 feet range 0, 50 CAP
500 Hellcats-3 at 18,000, range 0, 50 CAP
200 Spitfires VIII, at 31,000, range 0, 40 CAP
250 P-47-D25, at 36,000, range 0, 40 CAP
100 P-47-D, at 42,000, range 0, CAP 40
300 F4U-D, at 20,000, range 0, CAP 50
100 Wildcats at 10,000, range 7, CAP 30
200 P-40Ns, at 12,000, range 0, CAP 50
300 P-38 (L and J) at 31,000, range 0, CAP 50
100 Corsairs II, at 20,000, range 0, CAP 50
100 T-Bolds (I and II) at 19,000, range 0 CAP 50
200 between various Corsairs models, British hellcats, P-39s, Mosquitos and seafires between 6,000 and 15,000 feet, range o, CAP 50

What could i do more?
But above all...with big raids the CAP always get "disoriented"...always out of position...and the bombers ALWAYS get through... there's no way to stop them...

I think not even 6,000 fighters would have stopped that raid...and the following raids were even worse...the CAP is always out of position...always...

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6482

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:50:15 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Is that nearly 3,000 planes? All at Hakodate?

The other thing is apart from CAP 50% what else is set on the airgroups? Have you explicitly set them to a Rest %? If so then don't.

< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 2/5/2012 6:52:22 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6483

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:52:46 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 6484

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:54:06 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Is that nearly 3,000 planes? All at Hakodate?

The other thing is apart from CAP 50% what else is set on the airgroups? Have you explicitly set them to a Rest %? If so then don't.

9 level AFs are not affected by overstacking penalities.

And it's exactly the same result we've seen over my CVs and over my CVEs....

And no, when i say 50% CAP i mean 50% CAP and the rest on escort (but with 0 range that means the rest of them will be ready to be scrambled).

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 6485

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:54:39 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.

But there's no overstacking with 9 and 10 level AFs

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 6486

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 6:58:45 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.

But there's no overstacking with 9 and 10 level AFs

Yes you are right. I peeked into the manual and stand corrected.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6487

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:02:06 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

but the real point is that CAP, no matter how good, how strong it is, cannot defend against Big raids...

only 8 Helens were shot down by flak (another problem...and i have more than 230 90 mm guns at Hakodate...)

And all of them got thorugh if escorted...even the second day when the escort was very light...

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 6488

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:07:03 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.

But there's no overstacking with 9 and 10 level AFs

This may be true for operations but when the bombs fall or a naval bombardment hits the loss in aircraft on the ground seems to be very high when overstacked. And, if there are not penalties then there should be in future patches. The notion of 3,000 planes at one airfield is absurd. Of course Rader operates the same way and when your bombers have gotten through, his losses have been high on the ground. The difference is he can absorb them and you can't. I think recent events are grounds for an open and creative discussion for ways to limit these fantastic air battles.

Level 9 and 10 airfields should get some big bonuses but overstacking should apply to all airfields and the penalties should be harsher as the number increases. This sort of nonsense that we have seen in your game needs to be worked on. Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming you and Rader for doing it, but it is time for a discussion and serious work to fix it.

Perhaps some mods already have but I would like to see it fixed in stock as well as that is what I am playing.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6489

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:10:21 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

This looks like EPIC overstacking indeed.

But there's no overstacking with 9 and 10 level AFs

This may be true for operations but when the bombs fall or a naval bombardment hits the loss in aircraft on the ground seems to be very high when overstacked. And, if there are not penalties then there should be in future patches. The notion of 3,000 planes at one airfield is absurd. Of course Rader operates the same way and when your bombers have gotten through, his losses have been high on the ground. The difference is he can absorb them and you can't. I think recent events are grounds for an open and creative discussion for ways to limit these fantastic air battles.

Level 9 and 10 airfields should get some big bonuses but overstacking should apply to all airfields and the penalties should be harsher as the number increases. This sort of nonsense that we have seen in your game needs to be worked on. Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming you and Rader for doing it, but it is time for a discussion and serious work to fix it.

Perhaps some mods already have but I would like to see it fixed in stock as well as that is what I am playing.

IMHO the problem here isn't the planes torched on the ground. It's ok for me...
The problem imho is the CAP inefficiency when it comes to handle big escorted raids...
The escort always gets mauled and the bombers, no matter how many CAP you put, always get through... that's the problem

And CAP always seems "disoriented" when large raids arrive...

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6490

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:13:47 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

9 level AFs are not affected by overstacking penalities.

And it's exactly the same result we've seen over my CVs and over my CVEs....

And no, when i say 50% CAP i mean 50% CAP and the rest on escort (but with 0 range that means the rest of them will be ready to be scrambled).

I'm afraid that the game engine is broken. Don't know that this can be patched. I'm afraid this hurts one party much more than the other. One side can produce unlimited aircraft, the other side can not. At best I'd halt the game until tech support comments. I really don't think this is fixable. I don't even know what game you guys are playing any more. There is more bizarre outcomes than realistic ones. This is depressing.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6491

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:19:44 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

I still think a screenie of a fighter airgroup and AA unit would be useful.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 6492

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:23:09 PM

LoBaron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

Doh, was your airfield overstacked ?

Was about my first thought.
The number of different airframes alone looks too much.

GreyJoy, with regards to raids getting through:

Your CAP had to deal with too high numbers again, 600+ escort fighters on first raid. You probably were never able to match these
numbers in the air even 1:1 from what I see in the combat report. For this you killed a load of planes but simply not enough to burn through the escorts.

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

A2A only you achieve a nice result, adding the overstacking you don�t.
If I remember correctly you said yourself that it is a risk. Rader just did the right thing at the right moment.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 6493

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:24:29 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I still think a screenie of a fighter airgroup and AA unit would be useful.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 6494

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:27:50 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

Doh, was your airfield overstacked ?

Was about my first thought.
The number of different airframes alone looks too much.

GreyJoy, with regards to raids getting through:

Your CAP had to deal with too high numbers again, 600+ escort fighters on first raid. You probably were never able to match these
numbers in the air even 1:1 from what I see in the combat report. For this you killed a load of planes but simply not enough to burn through the escorts.

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

A2A only you achieve a nice result, adding the overstacking you don�t.
If I remember correctly you said yourself that it is a risk. Rader just did the right thing at the right moment.

this time i don't agree with you mate. And Rader feels exactly the same as me.
He told me that his oscars were 30 experience pilots...just draw from the replacements pool...
Sorry but it doesn't sound right that even 3000 fighters on the best possibile defensive position cannot put a dent against 600 rookies covering 400 bombers...

is there a way to defend against these raids? is there a way to even touch the bombers?

And again...with 3000 fighters ready...why shouldn't i be able to match the escort numbers?

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 6495

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:29:56 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

and this is the typical AA unit at Hakodate...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6496

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:32:41 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 6497

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:36:13 PM

aztez

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

The air combat seems to completely broken by these larger raids. Sad but true... and lack of AA kills is well pretty much the same.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6498

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:40:38 PM

Svar

Posts: 381
Joined: 9/7/2000
From: China Lake, Ca
Status: offline

quote:

And, if there are not penalties then there should be in future patches. The notion of 3,000 planes at one airfield is absurd.

I have been following this AAR for months and kept my mouth shut because I didn't have anything to contribute but this statement is just wrong. In any hex of 40 miles by 40 miles there could be many active airfields. Oahu alone probably had over 10. While some were emergency landing fields there were 4 or 5 big ones if my memory from the mid 1970s is correct when I was stationed there in an aviation unit and spent many hours over the island from which I could see all of them including those no longer in use.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6499

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:41:45 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

The air combat seems to completely broken by these larger raids. Sad but true... and lack of AA kills is well pretty much the same.

Actually, its not the lack of kills that concerns me so much as the lack of "turn backs".
Even a disasterous real life raid like Schweinfurt lost < 15% of the bomber force. Typical losses were more like 3-6%.

What CAP and FLAK did was cause the attackers to bomb short, wide, or not at all (turn back).

(in reply to aztez)

Post #: 6500

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 7:42:43 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

OK well those units look OK.

One thing I have wondered about is what is the effect of having multiple Air HQs in the same hex? Which ones does it use to make the die rolls? Or does it get confused?

Other than that, if you still have 4362 planes there after such a nuking all is perhaps not lost.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6501

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:01:47 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

GJ,

I've posted this in Rader's but I think it worth putting here. This is what happens when you send enough fighters to swamp the CAP. That's why you've seen it with three big strikes- your CAP jut ran out of passes before they got to te bombers.

Mock yourself up a scenario vs CV TFs with massed fighters and you'll see this can be reliably reproduced, it isn't a result of bad die rolls. My tested ( which I'll send if you want) has something like 30 CVs, 60 or so CVEs/CVLS and a couple of dozen BBs. A single day of strikes vs the 2,000 or so fighters on CAP tends to result in an average of 10 or so CVS, 30 to 40 CVEs and about 8 BBs sunk, with many more damaged or left in a sinking condition.

What happens is that the big raids get through because the CAP seems not to have firing passes left to attrition the bombers. End result, the bombers all get through and there's a massacre.

Going forward, until the code is changed ths will continue happening. I'm certain that these results are one reason Damian is not advancing rapidly in my game. He's worried that I'll swamp his CAP.

As to this being mentioned in tech support. It has been and Da Babes members decided to attack the who did and call into question their motives and integrity. So, if anyone here thinks the model is broken put your money where your mouth is and back up those who tred to get this fixed weeks ago.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 2/5/2012 8:06:01 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6502

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:07:32 PM

cwDeici

Posts: 70
Joined: 12/6/2011
Status: offline

Personally I think you should rerun that round after adding a HR a rule against swamping CAPs.
It'll ruin your fun if you keep on going after this round.

Perfectly realistic bombing is disallowed because it wouldn't be fun, unrealistic bombing should also be disallowed when it isn't fun.

< Message edited by cwDeici -- 2/5/2012 8:39:44 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 6503

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:09:35 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

BTW this phenomena is not unique to AE. We had the same problem in WITP.

In WITP, if you hit any CAP with 3 or more strikes in the same day, then the cap is toast. In AE this is mitigated to SOME extent. The cap is rotated in AE, so a larger number of planes at the base cannot be worn out with three strikes every time. In other words, in WITP the three strikes against the same CAP is a sure fired formula. In AE, it is not a sure fired formula, but you can still get to the same result with enough strikes, or even sub-flights, since AE makes more use of breaking up strikes than WITP.

So, net/net, I think AE is better than WITP in this case, but it is still not perfect. This is just one example of many where if you push the edges of the combat model as far as you can, some of the formulae implied by the code will break down.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 6504

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:11:29 PM

aztez

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

GJ,

I've posted this in Rader's but I think it worth putting here. This is what happens when you send enough fighters to swamp the CAP. That's why you've seen it with three big strikes- your CAP jut ran out of passes before they got to te bombers.

Mock yourself up a scenario vs CV TFs with massed fighters and you'll see this can be reliably reproduced, it isn't a result of bad die rolls. My tested ( which I'll send if you want) has something like 30 CVs, 60 or so CVEs/CVLS and a couple of dozen BBs. A single day of strikes vs the 2,000 or so fighters on CAP tends to result in an average of 10 or so CVS, 30 to 40 CVEs and about 8 BBs sunk, with many more damaged or left in a sinking condition.

What happens is that the big raids get through because the CAP seems not to have firing passes left to attrition the bombers. End result, the bombers all get through and there's a massacre.

Going forward, until the code is changed ths will continue happening. I'm certain that these results are one reason Damian is not advancing rapidly in my game. He's worried that I'll swamp his CAP.

As to this being mentioned in tech support. It has been and Da Babes members decided to attack the who did and call into question their motives and integrity. So, if anyone here thinks the model is broken put your money where your mouth is and back up those who tred to get this fixed weeks ago.

I said on the other thread that you are 110% on the money with your analysis Nemo.

Personally have been busy lately with RL and just now having a bit more time to play but have to say that reading such thing as this really starting make me to think whether to actually bother with this game.

Anyone saying that the air model is not broken and seriously flawed... well safe to say that I feel opposite.

Wiping out fleets and bases will make all hours of planning waste of time.

Definately an bug and serious one... so hats of to you Nemo stating the obvious.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 6505

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:14:19 PM

LoBaron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Problem 1: overstacked airfield
Problem 2: escorts (and good escort fighters as oscars are maneuverable) outnumbering CAP enough to make it useless.

1- If you're talking about the results of the destroyed on the ground...it is not a problem to me. But with a level 9 AF i shouldn't have any penality with my CAP

2- 2900 fighters on CAP should outnumber the escort and not the other way around (with the best possible radars present, good settings, air HQs etc etc)

Maybe I am missing something, but where do you pull the numbers from for the raid on Hakodate? I count 1200+ fighters available total against the first raid,
not 2900.

Considering the usual 1/3rd rule this means maybe 400+ available to engage the first pack.
For this the combat report shows astonishing 250+ kills, which is really good.

I agree with you that the relation between escorts and bombers is off (this is something which could be looked into), but not the total number of planes killed.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6506

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:16:51 PM

LoBaron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
What happens is that the big raids get through because the CAP seems not to have firing passes left to attrition the bombers. End result, the bombers all get through and there's a massacre.

Going forward, until the code is changed ths will continue happening. I'm certain that these results are one reason Damian is not advancing rapidly in my game. He's worried that I'll swamp his CAP.

As to this being mentioned in tech support. It has been and Da Babes members decided to attack the who did and call into question their motives and integrity. So, if anyone here thinks the model is broken put your money where your mouth is and back up those who tred to get this fixed weeks ago.

Definitely, but the problem is not the number of firing passes, but the fact that CAP engages escorts first, and bombers second.

So were at two possible solutions:
Either change the routine how CAP chooses targets, or artificially limit the raid packages again, michael mentioned something like this.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 6507

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:17:12 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

I actually think the severe lack of flak kills is a more serious problem.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 6508

RE: another disaster - 2/5/2012 8:19:03 PM

LoBaron

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

Jep, that was focused on in DaBabes.

_____________________________