Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
As I just stated in Grey Joy's AAR how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

Well, it should be able to handle the full Allied CV strength at a minimum I would say. If you assume that no Allied CVs are lost up until March 44, that probably is something of a maximum CV force that the game will have to handle. It's probably headed towards 2500 aircraft if you include all the Brits, of which roughly half will be fighters, and half again most likely escorts. This is plenty sufficient to break the existing setup based on Greyjoys tests, and could in theory happen in the most conservative of games.

I guess in '45, even more likely to happen.

And borked results regarding CVs will provoke a hell of a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth then ones involving an unsinkable airfield.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I think what is being lost here is that, while they have successfully explored the frontier of lunacy in terms of over stacking and uncovered the limits of computer processing power vis a vis AE, GJ and Rader did so by cramming an unrealistic number of aircraft into a relatively small space. In all likelihood, and I am guessing it sounds like they overcame all the little controls we put in place to break up Uber Air Battles in a unique set of circumstances that existed in their game.

What you are all advocating is hard coding essentially. We are talking about rewriting code for the game to accommodate gameplay that is aberrant. I admit that there are situations where large numbers of A/C come together regardless of how you play, and that others have begun to experience the same effects, but should we as developers risk making a change that could have 2nd and 3rd order effects on the rest of those that haven't seen this sort of thing in their game?

Development/support of this product is essentially over save for Michaelm's gracious charity. I can't just go in with a scalpel and start monkeying around with the code. Do I have ideas? yes. But it isn't my call.

Until something changes you all as players have to understand the limitations and try to live within them. That is the only way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

I find this statement funny, because historically this community as a collective understands that as Japan you can't win. Now apparently that rational has gone the way of the Dodo and it's the Allies who can't win.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3018547

Walked right up to 1 hex from Kyushu with all my carriers - Japan attacked - all my carriers walked back to Okinawa with a cve or two taking a bomb hit.

Dispersal is the key to survival. Agree with ELF.... if you approach the homelands, better have your CV's spread over multiple hexes and better have plenty of pickets out in front of the CV's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I think what is being lost here is that, while they have successfully explored the frontier of lunacy in terms of over stacking and uncovered the limits of computer processing power vis a vis AE, GJ and Rader did so by cramming an unrealistic number of aircraft into a relatively small space. In all likelihood, and I am guessing it sounds like they overcame all the little controls we put in place to break up Uber Air Battles in a unique set of circumstances that existed in their game.

What you are all advocating is hard coding essentially. We are talking about rewriting code for the game to accommodate gameplay that is aberrant. I admit that there are situations where large numbers of A/C come together regardless of how you play, and that others have begun to experience the same effects, but should we as developers risk making a change that could have 2nd and 3rd order effects on the rest of those that haven't seen this sort of thing in their game?

Development/support of this product is essentially over save for Michaelm's gracious charity. I can't just go in with a scalpel and start monkeying around with the code. Do I have ideas? yes. But it isn't my call.

Until something changes you all as players have to understand the limitations and try to live within them. That is the only way.

I don't think the GJ/Rader result is all that aberrant. I think everyone reaches a point where the forces on both sides are massive and the battlefield becomes very very congested as the allies vector in on the home islands. You don't have to "cram" planes into a single base to run into this problem. Dispersing your aircraft over a large # of airfields will lead to the same end result. It's just too easy to get the "golden" # of escorts you need to overcome any CAP. Changing service ratings, coordination penalties, overstacking penalties, etc. isn't gonna fix this issue. IMHO the coding for combat itself needs to be reviewed.

Anyways, add my game as a datapoint in support of reviewing the current "firing passes" coding. Could someone at least go into the code and see what kind of results you get when you fiddle with the numbers? IMHO without some change, late war games are going to be getting abandoned on a regular basis.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Additionally I can't control with code a couple of players who avoid CV combat or A2A combat at all until 1945 and have put all their time and energy into Aircraft production and have their "midway" in 1945 with the full strengh of the Combined fleet and the US Fleet. And that isn't likely to happen in EVERY game. But when it does, should we change the gut s of the game to accommodate the players who feel their game was borked?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
1. you are absolutely right. It is too easy to get the golden number of escorts. What is wrong with that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Additionally I can't control with code a couple of players who avoid CV combat or A2A combat at all until 1945 and have put all their time and energy into Aircraft production and have their "midway" in 1945 with the full strengh of the Combined fleet and the US Fleet. And that isn't likely to happen in EVERY game. But when it does, should we change the gut s of the game to accommodate the players who feel their game was borked?

Well maybe "borked" is a strong word as people seem to be homing in on it, but... you asked for a maximum size which needs handling. I agree you can't necessarily code for air combat of arbitrary size. But a maximum size would presumably be the above scenario. It's a little contrived, but not very contrived, and seems like a reasonable max to shoot for to me.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3018547

Walked right up to 1 hex from Kyushu with all my carriers - Japan attacked - all my carriers walked back to Okinawa with a cve or two taking a bomb hit.

Dispersal is the key to survival. Agree with ELF.... if you approach the homelands, better have your CV's spread over multiple hexes and better have plenty of pickets out in front of the CV's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
1. you are absolutely right. It is too easy to get the golden number of escorts. What is wrong with that?

I don't think magical cut off points have much place in reality. It's a very "hard" limit too, very noticeable when you have hit it, as Greyjoy discovered in his tests. I dont' really see why CAP should be mystically limited to 300 passes - especially given the aforementioned note that it might possibly represent six hours of air combat.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
two part test...

1. you are absolutely right. It is too easy to get the golden number of escorts. What is wrong with that?

2. The 8th Air Force found the same equation. Riddle me this: how many 8th Air Force Raids were turned back. How many times did they not hit their target (where weather didn't prevent it)?

So answer # 2 and then Answer #1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

I find this statement funny, because historically this community as a collective understands that as Japan you can't win. Now apparently that rational has gone the way of the Dodo and it's the Allies who can't win.

No, the allies can win for sure. They just can't expect to use their carriers w/o having them slaughtered. The same applies to the KB. It's just that in late war games, the allied carriers will usually be the ones to enter "exposed" waters.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I think what is being lost here is that, while they have successfully explored the frontier of lunacy in terms of over stacking and uncovered the limits of computer processing power vis a vis AE, GJ and Rader did so by cramming an unrealistic number of aircraft into a relatively small space. In all likelihood, and I am guessing it sounds like they overcame all the little controls we put in place to break up Uber Air Battles in a unique set of circumstances that existed in their game.

What you are all advocating is hard coding essentially. We are talking about rewriting code for the game to accommodate gameplay that is aberrant. I admit that there are situations where large numbers of A/C come together regardless of how you play, and that others have begun to experience the same effects, but should we as developers risk making a change that could have 2nd and 3rd order effects on the rest of those that haven't seen this sort of thing in their game?

Development/support of this product is essentially over save for Michaelm's gracious charity. I can't just go in with a scalpel and start monkeying around with the code. Do I have ideas? yes. But it isn't my call.

Until something changes you all as players have to understand the limitations and try to live within them. That is the only way.

I don't think the GJ/Rader result is all that aberrant. I think everyone reaches a point where the forces on both sides are massive and the battlefield becomes very very congested as the allies vector in on the home islands. You don't have to "cram" planes into a single base to run into this problem. Dispersing your aircraft over a large # of airfields will lead to the same end result. It's just too easy to get the "golden" # of escorts you need to overcome any CAP. Changing service ratings, coordination penalties, overstacking penalties, etc. isn't gonna fix this issue. IMHO the coding for combat itself needs to be reviewed.

Anyways, add my game as a datapoint in support of reviewing the current "firing passes" coding. Could someone at least go into the code and see what kind of results you get when you fiddle with the numbers? IMHO without some change, late war games are going to be getting abandoned on a regular basis.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
ok EU, you are now my advisor. Give me a number. Give me the total number of A/c that should be reasonably assumed to participate in a single combat without breaking the game. There has to be a hard number, that is the way code works. There is only so much room in the game for 1s an 0s. What is your number?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

KA-CHING!

Hopefully now the penny drops.

Let's say in theory a Japanese player has a massive Level 10 airbase that has 1,200 aircraft there. I, as Allied player, want to attack this base with my CVs. But how?

Do I group all 20x my CVs into a single TF and hope that my massed CAP will protect me from his strike and then hope that my massed strike will suppress her airbase?

OR WAIT!

Do I rather disperse into five different TFs in different hexes all within strike range of this UBER-base, and set all five my TFs to attack the base in question?

Hmmmmmmm...

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

I find this statement funny, because historically this community as a collective understands that as Japan you can't win. Now apparently that rational has gone the way of the Dodo and it's the Allies who can't win.

No, the allies can win for sure. They just can't expect to use their carriers w/o having them slaughtered. The same applies to the KB. It's just that in late war games, the allied carriers will usually be the ones to enter "exposed" waters.

How do you know that in Rader's and GJ's game conditions didn't exist that meant GJ's carriers SHOULDN'T get slaughtered?

Whose to say that there are no conditions that could have existed in RL that wouldn't have meant the US got their CVs slaughtered? Is NEVER slaughtering Carriers approaching the home islands a foregone conclusion regardless of the circumstances?

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

As an Operations Research Analyst who has data modeling to support decisions, to include wargaming to determine force requirements in Afghanistan, the maxim we always remember is that "all models are wrong, but some are useful".

Any combat model has a baseline of facts and assumptions that once invalidated provide "unuseful" output.

The point here is that the farther you go away from the available data and the conditions it was collected under make for some real issues into the consistency and quality of the output. What you have to do is start making more assumptions and attaching quantative values to the assumptions. It then gets hard to evaluate the outcomes because of the "dogpiling" of assumptions and thier quantative impacts on the outcomes.

A real modeling mess that may not may not return viable outputs, take alot of effort, and then in turn get skewed when the the assumptions are changed/invalidated based on radical changes to inputs.

There is no "right" answer, but a good answer given a set of assumptions.

Like Elf said, if you want to break it, you can find the inputs that skew the outcomes of the model to your favor if you break the undelying assumptions that are the basis for the model.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

And hope your Japanese opponent is unable to send a heavy bombardment force to "spread the love" all over that B-29 base.

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

As an Operations Research Analyst who has data modeling to support decisions, to include wargaming to determine force requirements in Afghanistan, the maxim we always remember is that "all models are wrong, but some are useful".

Any combat model has a baseline of facts and assumptions that once invalidated provide "unuseful" output.

The point here is that the farther you go away from the available data and the conditions it was collected under make for some real issues into the consistency and quality of the output. What you have to do is start making more assumptions and attaching quantative values to the assumptions. It then gets hard to evaluate the outcomes because of the "dogpiling" of assumptions and thier quantative impacts on the outcomes.

A real modeling mess that may not may not return viable outputs, take alot of effort, and then in turn get skewed when the the assumptions are changed/invalidated based on radical changes to inputs.

There is no "right" answer, but a good answer given a set of assumptions.

Like Elf said, if you want to break it, you can find the inputs that skew the outcomes of the model to your favor if you break the undelying assumptions that are the basis for the model.

Thank you Harvey. Always good to have the perspective of someone who does this sort of thing professionally.

One of the things that amazes me is the level of coordination that occurred. I can't tell you how many times I have been blasted in threads because "such and such raid didn't coordinate"... "Escorts won't escort!"... "my raids get slaughtered because they won't go in together!" etc. In this case they did, presumably because the player put his units in places where the conditions existed to gain maximum coordination bonuses. But it really is night and day from those other people...

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

KA-CHING!

Hopefully now the penny drops.

Let's say in theory a Japanese player has a massive Level 10 airbase that has 1,200 aircraft there. I, as Allied player, want to attack this base with my CVs. But how?

Do I group all 20x my CVs into a single TF and hope that my massed CAP will protect me from his strike and then hope that my massed strike will suppress her airbase?

OR WAIT!

Do I rather disperse into five different TFs in different hexes all within strike range of this UBER-base, and set all five my TFs to attack the base in question?

Hmmmmmmm...

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I think that a contributor to the problem is the expectation that Japan should always be something that you can approach / bomb / invade by 1945, even if the war hasn't progressed anywhere near historical lines. By the time the Allies were planning Downfall, Japan had practically zero skilled pilots and were just about scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of air-frames, and yet the Allies STILL expected a million or so losses and STILL came up with the Big Blue Blanket CAP strategy.

Now, if we grant that the Japanese player still has a sizable air-force and moderately skilled pilots, because WITP is not on historical rails, then shouldn't we also grant that maybe Japan can be fortified to a point where it *is* untouchable? Or at least, untouchable in 1945, when there's still more than enough supplies to fly thousands of sorties.

As TheElf said, part of it is setting your expectations accordingly. If the KB is still alive, and the IJ LBA hasn't been pissed away in the Marianas and the Air Battle Over Formosa, then maybe we have to expect that pulling off a Downfall isn't simply a matter of time and fate.