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 219 220 [221] 222 223 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:44:51 AM

JohnDillworth

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

quote:

Same settings...but with 70% CAP and 0 hex...

ALL the bombers got through....

Just for laughs why not try just 200 fighters? Maybe the math goes bad just based on gross numbers? Might be the software developer in me but I have seen stranger things

_____________________________

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 TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6601

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:47:30 AM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Very depressing outcomes from your tests GJ.........

To be honest I dont think anyone, including the developers has any real idea as to why this is happening, and what can be done to fix it.

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6602

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 1:25:51 AM

DTurtle

Posts: 443
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Just for laughs why not try just 200 fighters? Maybe the math goes bad just based on gross numbers? Might be the software developer in me but I have seen stranger things

Yeah, I'm with this. If it was that easy to get bombers through, this problem should have been known for a long time - as those are numbers that can be reached very, very early. There has to be something else screwing with this.

Maybe it really is that you have too many fighters defending - definitely worth a test.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 6603

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 1:45:26 AM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Ser Greyjoy, it appears Miller is exactly right. This game is borked at the levels you and Rader are playing. It is apparent that the game was never really tested concerning very large aerial engagements. Frankly, this does not appear to be a problem at much lower intensity or those levels of intensity seen thru mid-43 or so. That is the usual point most games end, so it isn't a huge surprise to see these results are surprising to most of us.

Frankly, as has been noted, naval flak (probably all flak) does not work well and the Japanese E escorts are completely out of whack. I suspect the flak and e-escort problems can be solved fairly easily, but the Cap/Raider problem is soemthing that might require a lot of owrk.

Good luck finding a good compromise with Rader. All of us will benefit if you do. Thanks for trying.

(in reply to DTurtle)

Post #: 6604

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 1:58:42 AM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

The ASW and AA problems are corrected to some degree with the DaBigBabes series of scenarios, but they didn't do a data base fix for the official scenarios with the latest official patch. As far as I can tell they are not planning on doing another patch, so there probably will not be any data base fix.

(in reply to princep01)

Post #: 6605

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 3:09:23 AM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Very depressing outcomes from your tests GJ.........

To be honest I dont think anyone, including the developers has any real idea as to why this is happening, and what can be done to fix it.

One might need to carve out the entire AE Air Combat model and replace it with the old WitP Air Combat model. Sure, lots of people said that they "hated" it, but it did give Marianas-type results under Marianas-type conditions.

The current Air Combat model is garbage, and no amount of rationalization can get around that. Every test everyone does shows this more and more clearly.

Designing Air Combat so that some number of Bombers must always get through if there are escorts (and sometimes even if there aren't) was a fundamental fallacy that has hurt the Air Combat part of AE right from the beginning.

House Rules can't fix this problem. Only coding can.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 6606

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 7:22:50 AM

GreyJoy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Just for laughs why not try just 200 fighters? Maybe the math goes bad just based on gross numbers? Might be the software developer in me but I have seen stranger things

Yeah, I'm with this. If it was that easy to get bombers through, this problem should have been known for a long time - as those are numbers that can be reached very, very early. There has to be something else screwing with this.

Maybe it really is that you have too many fighters defending - definitely worth a test.

Ok, i'll try to empty hakodate and only use 200 fighters to defend against the same size strike...but i don't have many expectatipns to be honest...

I've been lucky till now cause Rader, untill the last turn, told me he was too scared to send hos betties and frances to attack my Surface fleet at Hakodate and face those 3000 crack fighterrs i have there....if he only had known....

(in reply to DTurtle)

Post #: 6607

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 9:38:59 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

There is definetly something broken here. I mean how could two players, having played together for 1 or 2 years IRL, being in 44 with their respective CV fleets more or less intact feel confident to keep on playing without risking a single turn savaging 2 years of investment ?

It looks that with this model the only solution for the allies late war is to advance very carefully only in areas where they can achieve complete and total air suppression with LBA alone. limits the avenues...

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6608

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 9:44:28 AM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

There is definetly something broken here. I mean how could two players, having played together for 1 or 2 years IRL, being in 44 with their respective CV fleets more or less intact feel confident to keep on playing without risking a single turn savaging 2 years of investment ?

It looks that with this model the only solution for the allies late war is to advance very carefully only in areas where they can achieve complete and total air suppression with LBA alone. limits the avenues...

I think the concentration of engineers in Japan is the issue, it means the Japanese airfields are unsuppressable. On top of that, as Japan makes its own supply obviously, and generally sits on a big stockpile of fuel, you can't cut the place off and bring a quick resolution.

So you can't starve them out, you can't bomb them out, and the game engine makes it impossible to achieve local air superiority if they are not "out", as we have seen.

I've not noticed these issues so far though in my own game. I think even somewhere like Luzon could be starved out and bombed out. I think this is a special case regarding Japan, a special case exacerbated by the fact that Greyjoy has attacked on an extremely narrow front and pretty much all of IJ can be marshalled against that front. Even so. It seems to me that any game is going to eventually run into these issues when its invasion of Japan time, assuming Japan is still capable of resistance (by which we mean capable of a 400 a/c strike, which seems a pretty low bar to me).

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 2/9/2012 9:45:58 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 6609

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 10:07:52 AM

EUBanana

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

I think a lot of this stuff could be solved with caps probably, maybe soft caps rather than hard ones.

Like the number of of engineers and engineering vehicles that can fix an airfield should probably have some sort of limit. If you have a billion bulldozers it doesn't mean you're going to fix the runway in a nanosecond after all.

The same applies with the size of strike packages, though I do think that the way escorts are handled seems to have fundamental issues with them acting like bullet sponges.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 6610

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 10:26:17 AM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Very depressing outcomes from your tests GJ.........

To be honest I dont think anyone, including the developers has any real idea as to why this is happening, and what can be done to fix it.

One might need to carve out the entire AE Air Combat model and replace it with the old WitP Air Combat model. Sure, lots of people said that they "hated" it, but it did give Marianas-type results under Marianas-type conditions.

The current Air Combat model is garbage, and no amount of rationalization can get around that. Every test everyone does shows this more and more clearly.
Designing Air Combat so that some number of Bombers must always get through if there are escorts (and sometimes even if there aren't) was a fundamental fallacy that has hurt the Air Combat part of AE right from the beginning.

House Rules can't fix this problem. Only coding can.

To be fair to the devs that is a rather harsh statement. I think the air model works quite well with reasonable numbers on both sides. My game is at August 43 and things seem to be going fairly well in that department.

Bringing back the old WITP air model would be a huge step backwards IMO. It would just tip the problem way back the other way against the Japs later in the game. 1000 a/c strikes going in against a 1000 a/c CAP would usually mean 1000 attackers shot down without a single attack a/c getting through to drop anyhthing on target. Obviously it has gone totally the other way in this game, but after all this game is very much "Off the map" in terms of how the real war was fought.

Whilst GJs approach has been very entertaining for us readers.....if perhaps he had been more methodical in his advance then Rader would not have been able to mass these numbers, or even produce as much if the oil had been cut off first. I realise this would be hard to do with Allied subs being easy targets for the E class escorts, but that is easier to fix in mods such as DBB.

I am fairly confident that with some further investigation that a solution (of sorts) can be found..........

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 6611

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 11:16:19 AM

GreyJoy

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

I'm reporting here the results posted in the main section concerning what happens if i don't overstack Hakodate (a level 9 AF, mind you).
So here i'm simulating an amphib TF composed of 30 ships (3 BBs + 2 CVEs + 25 APAs) loading troops at Hakodate, where is based a single fighter group composed of 200 P-47s with pilots with an avg experience of 80...against a raid composed of 50 Franks and 50 Betties from Tokyo (not a MASSIVE raid as you may guess...)
Results...again...are discouraging...

1st test: 50 Betties + 51 Franks (from Tokyo) against an Amphib TF at Hakodate. At Hakodate is based a fighter group composed of the usual 200 P-47s with 80 experience.

Settings: incoming strike at 6,000
P-47s set to Escort, 50% CAP, 50% Rest, 15k feet, range 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 54 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M3a Betty x 50
Ki-84a Frank x 51

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 50

...50%CAP + 50% rest should mean fighters available for CAP duties...

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M3a Betty: 13 destroyed, 31 damaged
G4M3a Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
Ki-84a Frank: 19 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
BB Arkansas, Torpedo hits 1
APA William P. Biddle
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
APA Heywood, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis

Aircraft Attacking:
43 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet nearly all the bombers got through...
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
2 x Ki-84a Frank sweeping at 10000 feet *

CAP engaged:
52nd Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (16 airborne, 34 on standby, 0 scrambling

16 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

Ammo storage explosion on CVE Chenango
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Banzai! - Hidaka C. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor

2nd Test.

Same as usual with the P-47s on escort + 50% CAP (0% rest), alt 15k, range 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 28 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M3a Betty x 50
Ki-84a Frank x 51

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M3a Betty: 7 destroyed, 17 damaged
G4M3a Betty: 2 destroyed by flak
Ki-84a Frank: 25 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 1
BB Arkansas, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis
APA Zeilin, Torpedo hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
37 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
52nd Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 67 on standby, 0 scrambling)
33 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

3rd test

P-47s on 100% CAP, 15k, 0 range

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 76 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M3a Betty x 50
Ki-84a Frank x 51

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 200

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M3a Betty: 8 destroyed, 16 damaged
G4M3a Betty: 2 destroyed by flak
Ki-84a Frank: 24 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 4, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
APA John Penn
APA American Legion, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
APA Henry T. Allen
APA Harry Lee, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis

Aircraft Attacking:
47 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet ...again, most of the bombers got to the target unmolested.-..
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
52nd Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 134 on standby, 0 scrambling)
66 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
48 planes vectored on to bombers

Banzai! - Agawa T. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor
Inoue N. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming BB North Carolina
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring BB North Carolina
Banzai! - Ishimori H. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring APA American Legion
Banzai! - Miyajima B. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor

....so even with small numbers (50+50 attacking planes against a max number of 200 defending fighters) the result is always the same: put a few escort and the bombers will hit their target...and hit hard!

I don't know if i'm doing something wrong in placing my CAP...i'd like to be supported by some one else doing some tests to see if it's me or the code...

In my tests however CAP doesn't work as i thought it should...no matter the numbers...1000 defending fighters are ineffective exactly like 50....

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 6612

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 11:52:07 AM

TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum

Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline

GJ, try having 4 groups of 50 aircraft each. Perhaps having 200 aircraft in one group is breaking the code.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6613

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 11:59:49 AM

GreyJoy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

GJ, try having 4 groups of 50 aircraft each. Perhaps having 200 aircraft in one group is breaking the code.

Ok, will try!

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6614

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:07:44 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Very depressing outcomes from your tests GJ.........

To be honest I dont think anyone, including the developers has any real idea as to why this is happening, and what can be done to fix it.

One might need to carve out the entire AE Air Combat model and replace it with the old WitP Air Combat model. Sure, lots of people said that they "hated" it, but it did give Marianas-type results under Marianas-type conditions.

The current Air Combat model is garbage, and no amount of rationalization can get around that. Every test everyone does shows this more and more clearly.
Designing Air Combat so that some number of Bombers must always get through if there are escorts (and sometimes even if there aren't) was a fundamental fallacy that has hurt the Air Combat part of AE right from the beginning.

House Rules can't fix this problem. Only coding can.

To be fair to the devs that is a rather harsh statement. I think the air model works quite well with reasonable numbers on both sides. My game is at August 43 and things seem to be going fairly well in that department.

Bringing back the old WITP air model would be a huge step backwards IMO. It would just tip the problem way back the other way against the Japs later in the game. 1000 a/c strikes going in against a 1000 a/c CAP would usually mean 1000 attackers shot down without a single attack a/c getting through to drop anyhthing on target. Obviously it has gone totally the other way in this game, but after all this game is very much "Off the map" in terms of how the real war was fought.

Whilst GJs approach has been very entertaining for us readers.....if perhaps he had been more methodical in his advance then Rader would not have been able to mass these numbers, or even produce as much if the oil had been cut off first. I realise this would be hard to do with Allied subs being easy targets for the E class escorts, but that is easier to fix in mods such as DBB.

I am fairly confident that with some further investigation that a solution (of sorts) can be found..........

absolutely with Miller here, saying the air routines should be replaced with WITP's ones is too harsh as AE's routines are far better than WITP's, until we reach a certain stage. From that stage on, I see WITP's UBER Cap working better than AE's routines because swapping out Turkey shoots with Allied fleet slaughters is further away from a realistic outcome than WITP's results.

Besides that, in WITP I've seen enough people (and have done it myselve) that were able to overcome the so called UBER Cap and get bombers through to hit enemy fleets (not totally whiping them out), so in those late war scenarios it seems WITP really does a better job. Now show me someone that gets AE's thousands of fighters act as realistic Cap.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/9/2012 12:13:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 6615

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:11:02 PM

GreyJoy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

GJ, try having 4 groups of 50 aircraft each. Perhaps having 200 aircraft in one group is breaking the code.

Here u are... 4 groups of 50 planes each. Escort + 50% CAP, 0 range, 15k alt....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 01, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100

Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 11 destroyed, 31 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Colorado

Aircraft Attacking:
33 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6616

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:24:02 PM

TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum

Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline

33 got through that time.

As opposed to 47, 37, and 43 when you had one huge super-group.

You changed the type of bombers involved though, which could account for the losses.

< Message edited by TheLoneGunman -- 2/9/2012 12:25:51 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6617

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:39:16 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Actually that last attack result looks fairly realistic, if anything the only thing that looks a bit off is the accuracy of the bombers...7 hits from 33 is a bit high but they are launching against slow targets.

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6618

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:40:17 PM

JohnDillworth

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

quote:

33 got through that time.

As opposed to 47, 37, and 43 when you had one huge super-group.

You changed the type of bombers involved though, which could account for the losses.

The results should be more consistent with the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Very Roughly same number of bombers in the strike package vs hellcats. A HANDFULL got through to release, but probably not 33. GJ thanks for trying. Looks like 1/10 the fighters got about the same result as 2000. This is strange. I've had big raids earlier in the war that that did not have this problem. I wonder what is influencing these results?

_____________________________

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 6619

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 12:42:45 PM

TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum

Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline

Hop on over to GJ's other thread in the general forum.

He posted another result with the same CAP at 6k feet and they wiped the bombers out.

So altitude is critical.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 6620

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 2:21:37 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Just for laughs why not try just 200 fighters? Maybe the math goes bad just based on gross numbers? Might be the software developer in me but I have seen stranger things

Yeah, I'm with this. If it was that easy to get bombers through, this problem should have been known for a long time - as those are numbers that can be reached very, very early. There has to be something else screwing with this.

Maybe it really is that you have too many fighters defending - definitely worth a test.

Ok, i'll try to empty hakodate and only use 200 fighters to defend against the same size strike...but i don't have many expectatipns to be honest...

I've been lucky till now cause Rader, untill the last turn, told me he was too scared to send hos betties and frances to attack my Surface fleet at Hakodate and face those 3000 crack fighterrs i have there....if he only had known....

Yes, and he has not used kamikazes to any great extent. Imagine what would be left of your fleet if he put a 1,000 plane kami attack on it. That might be worth a test too. Heck even 500 would do massive damaged. Not that he needed to use kamis at all. His torpedo bombers did a pretty good job.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6621

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 2:29:53 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

GJ, try having 4 groups of 50 aircraft each. Perhaps having 200 aircraft in one group is breaking the code.

Here u are... 4 groups of 50 planes each. Escort + 50% CAP, 0 range, 15k alt....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 01, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50

Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100

Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 11 destroyed, 31 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Colorado

Aircraft Attacking:
33 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

Actually for these numbers and this test, the results are what I would expect given reasonably experienced Japanese pilots. Nothing wrong here and the number of planes shot down is well within expected norms. The problem here is the lack of decent flak. In an attack such as this you would expect the bolts to tangle with the fighters and get to the bombers a bit. However, with many already damaged bombers attacking into late war flak you would expect many more to drop to flak or get severe enough damage so that the attack run results in a miss.

Likewise, given the balance of the forces-although the damage to the ships is high it is not out of the range of expectations. Remember, you are dealing with higher quality planes and pilots than the Allied had to deal with in the real affair. I really have little problem with air warfare at the lower levels. However, I have a problem with flak at all levels as we get into the late war battles.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6622

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 2:42:57 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Having only played the AI, I am not sure I have correctly followed all your fighter deployments so I apologize if you have already tried this :

Since Allied fighter defence late war was a "defence in depth" with concentric rings or arcs of fighters intercepting incoming strikes from the time of first detection, have you tried setting up arcs of CAP/LRCAP in arcs along the likely approach of incoming enemies? Say one and two hexes out from the one you are protecting?
Your last experiment seems to show that smaller groups engage as well as large ones so spread them out and have more engagements prior to the attack.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6623

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 2:46:22 PM

Puhis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Actually for these numbers and this test, the results are what I would expect given reasonably experienced Japanese pilots. Nothing wrong here and the number of planes shot down is well within expected norms.

I have to agree here. Frances and Frank are Japan's best and fastest planes. Not that easy to shot down than old Betties and Zeros.

I wonder what would it be if Japan had older and slower planes?

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6624

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 2:49:54 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Having only played the AI, I am not sure I have correctly followed all your fighter deployments so I apologize if you have already tried this :

Since Allied fighter defence late war was a "defence in depth" with concentric rings or arcs of fighters intercepting incoming strikes from the time of first detection, have you tried setting up arcs of CAP/LRCAP in arcs along the likely approach of incoming enemies? Say one and two hexes out from the one you are protecting?
Your last experiment seems to show that smaller groups engage as well as large ones so spread them out and have more engagements prior to the attack.

that doesn't work. Cap or LRCAP doesn't intercept strikes that aren't going into the hex Cap or LRCAP is assigned to.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 6625

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 3:02:51 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Thanks CT. So an enemy strike would get a free pass through a hex with fighters just viewing the scenery?!! This looks like a code change is needed - there should at least be a chance of interception at a distance, given radar detection at 119 miles in the last test and vectoring from ground/sea fighter controllers.

As it stands you would need to put picket ships out there that the Japanese strike would go to instead of the main force. Would a hoarde of PTs work?? Torpedoes should pass right under them without exploding!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 6626

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 3:08:25 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

I'm sure something like that would be possible.

After all, they managed to code in the mid-ocean intercept from WITP to WITP-AE. Same rationale - TFs were only engaging if they ended the phase in the same turn.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 6627

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 3:38:35 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

GreyJoy.. don't use 50% rest like you indicated.. that means the other 50% do just like you want... rest.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 6628

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 3:39:23 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Having only played the AI, I am not sure I have correctly followed all your fighter deployments so I apologize if you have already tried this :

Since Allied fighter defence late war was a "defence in depth" with concentric rings or arcs of fighters intercepting incoming strikes from the time of first detection, have you tried setting up arcs of CAP/LRCAP in arcs along the likely approach of incoming enemies? Say one and two hexes out from the one you are protecting?
Your last experiment seems to show that smaller groups engage as well as large ones so spread them out and have more engagements prior to the attack.

that doesn't work. Cap or LRCAP doesn't intercept strikes that aren't going into the hex Cap or LRCAP is assigned to.

That would be the circles of apollonius problem applied to every squadron in the attack after die rolls .. it wold be more realistic . it would also be more intense on the computing side of the equation so to speak ..

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 6629

RE: another disaster - 2/9/2012 3:52:17 PM

GreyJoy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

GreyJoy.. don't use 50% rest like you indicated.. that means the other 50% do just like you want... rest.

Jeff, i used that setting only once...to try...and the result was: out of 200 fighters, 50 rested, 50 flew CAP and the other 100 simply remained in the hangars (no scambling, no standby...)

Was just an attempt...i know what happens with "rest"...