Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Nik has interesting solution to some aspects of massive air combats in his modded scenario, dramatically increasing the service ratings of planes. Very rarely in Pacific an air unit had more than 70% of it's planes fully functional same time. This would cut down the numbers somewhat..and with stacking limits, would make truly massive air raids more difficult to achieve.

I whole heartedly agree. In fact I have thought the same thing for quite a while. If I could snap my fingers I would increase ALL a/c by 1 in Service Rating. in fact the felxibility of doing just that was the whole reason I came up with the Service Rating in the first place. It was a simple variable that affected the sortie rate of a an A/C and it could be applied across the board or individually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Nik has interesting solution to some aspects of massive air combats in his modded scenario, dramatically increasing the service ratings of planes. Very rarely in Pacific an air unit had more than 70% of it's planes fully functional same time. This would cut down the numbers somewhat..and with stacking limits, would make truly massive air raids more difficult to achieve.

I whole heartedly agree. In fact I have thought the same thing for quite a while. If I could snap my fingers I would increase ALL a/c by 1 in Service Rating. in fact the felxibility of doing just that was the whole reason I came up with the Service Rating in the first place. It was a simple variable that affected the sortie rate of a an A/C and it could be applied across the board or individually.

Agreed, but I am fearful that this would severly penalize the Allies as in my experience the difference between a 2 service rating fighter vs a 3 is much more severe than the difference between a 1 service rating over 2. I already think that the air war in 1942 the Japanese player holds a distinct advantage due to superior service ratings for fighters. An already outnumberd Allied player might suffer more than what would be considered realistic. This is especially true for we "fools" playing scen #2. I think service ratings are one of the most elegant and simple improvement over WITP but I would urge you to not make changes too quickly.

I want to add that I am pleased to see this sort of thread here in the forum, and am the first to admit that I am amazed at some of the dumbassed statements that I made about the air model a year and a half ago. We must drive you crazy at times....I will say that after two years of campaigning that the air model is a lot better than I thought and that the changes that are needed are only minor in my mind. Perhaps it takes two years to really filter out the issues in a game this complex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes
In regards to the firing passes issue, quality of pilots or airframes is irrelevant. All you need is a couple hundred newbs in an obsolescent escort fighter and the bombers will always get thru. I'm not sure, but I believe Rader or Greyjoy actually tested this. They loaded up some squadrons with completely unskilled pilots and sent them out to escort some bombers. The escorts were slaughtered (as always) but the bombers got thru w/o a scratch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

In post #435 of this thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2817344&mpage=15&key= Radar states he purposely sent green pilots in Oscars since having 200 fighters would guarantee that the bombers would not be touched. That is his statement, I am completely on the sideline trying to figure out what to do in the end game as Allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

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.

I am not saying their result is aberrant I am saying the circumstances of the combat is aberrant. In terms of how they massed EVERYTHING into one small space.

I also noted that Rader seemed to have the technological upperhand in many cases having fielded several new types of IJ planes. There was NOTHING historical about the battle. It was completely in fantasy land. No precedent for it. and I can't even see behind the curtain. What were the pilots like? how healthy was Rader's pilot corps? What was his supply situation?

Maybe he had ALL the odds stacked in his favor because he played an excellent game, and GJ didn't? I don't know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Now if I starve Japan of oil and still can't deal with her air power then we will have something to talk about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I would submit that as we start tinkering with the inputs that are the quantitative implementation of our modified assumptions, that there be some testing of the model to establish a baseline, then do a sensitivity analysis on the impacts of the changed variable to the outcomes.

I am not sure that a substanative analysis on the model has been done (I mean something like holding ALL variables steady for both sides and do 30-40 runs of the same situation). It would require some work to develop the scneario, adjust/list ALL the inputs, and some patience to actually do the runs and collect the data.

One or two runs in a game are simply worthless as a way to analyze the model. All the factors that inmpact the outcomes must be identified and controlled, and adequate number of runs needs to be made to estsablish the mean outcome and the nature of the outcomes outside 2 standard deviations and into the "tails".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

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.

In regards to the firing passes issue, quality of pilots or airframes is irrelevant. All you need is a couple hundred newbs in an obsolescent escort fighter and the bombers will always get thru. I'm not sure, but I believe Rader or Greyjoy actually tested this. They loaded up some squadrons with completely unskilled pilots and sent them out to escort some bombers. The escorts were slaughtered (as always) but the bombers got thru w/o a scratch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

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.

I am not saying their result is aberrant I am saying the circumstances of the combat is aberrant. In terms of how they massed EVERYTHING into one small space.

I also noted that Rader seemed to have the technological upperhand in many cases having fielded several new types of IJ planes. There was NOTHING historical about the battle. It was completely in fantasy land. No precedent for it. and I can't even see behind the curtain. What were the pilots like? how healthy was Rader's pilot corps? What was his supply situation?

Maybe he had ALL the odds stacked in his favor because he played an excellent game, and GJ didn't? I don't know.

Yes, I don't think it is productive to keep citing this particual game which I doubt very few players here will be able to replicate. Greyjoy pulled off a total surprise and thrust every thing he had into Rader's gut and Rader replied with everything he had. I should point out though that Greyjoy did this without cutting off the lines of communication to the home islands or without doing any damage at all to Japanese oil supplies and production- in an already unrealistic scen #2 game. (some aircraft factories but not enough) I for one am not going to try and invade Japan without trying to turn off the oil flow. The AAR was fun and a great read but it also convinced me not to try that at home.

Now if I starve Japan of oil and still can't deal with her air power then we will have something to talk about.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

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.

In regards to the firing passes issue, quality of pilots or airframes is irrelevant. All you need is a couple hundred newbs in an obsolescent escort fighter and the bombers will always get thru. I'm not sure, but I believe Rader or Greyjoy actually tested this. They loaded up some squadrons with completely unskilled pilots and sent them out to escort some bombers. The escorts were slaughtered (as always) but the bombers got thru w/o a scratch.

Not been that much lately but have 100% agree with Jzanes.

I'am in past mid 1945's in my game as allied and have experienced and experiencing same stuff you stated here.

Allthough your views does not seem to sink in that well with the crowd here.

As said what it is worth I agree completely with your statements in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Can you stack 20 CVs in a hex in 1945? Yes. Should you? No.

It makes no odds if you do or not. It's the 300 escort max limit which is the issue, not glomming 20 CVs into one hex. The problem if anything is on the LBA side, not the CVs.

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: aztez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

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.

In regards to the firing passes issue, quality of pilots or airframes is irrelevant. All you need is a couple hundred newbs in an obsolescent escort fighter and the bombers will always get thru. I'm not sure, but I believe Rader or Greyjoy actually tested this. They loaded up some squadrons with completely unskilled pilots and sent them out to escort some bombers. The escorts were slaughtered (as always) but the bombers got thru w/o a scratch.

Not been that much lately but have 100% agree with Jzanes.

I'am in past mid 1945's in my game as allied and have experienced and experiencing same stuff you stated here.

Allthough your views does not seem to sink in that well with the crowd here.

As said what it is worth I agree completely with your statements in this thread.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Changing the Air Combat model becausethe Allied player has not been able to create the conditions to approach the Home Islands with acceptable risk is not a good idea.

The action around Okinawa with the success of the Kamikaze attacks gave the USN pause to the idea of having CVs hanging around the home islands for successive days without first changing the conditions.

In and out raids are one thing, hanging around is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

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.

In regards to the firing passes issue, quality of pilots or airframes is irrelevant. All you need is a couple hundred newbs in an obsolescent escort fighter and the bombers will always get thru. I'm not sure, but I believe Rader or Greyjoy actually tested this. They loaded up some squadrons with completely unskilled pilots and sent them out to escort some bombers. The escorts were slaughtered (as always) but the bombers got thru w/o a scratch.

Not been that much lately but have 100% agree with Jzanes.

I'am in past mid 1945's in my game as allied and have experienced and experiencing same stuff you stated here.

Allthough your views does not seem to sink in that well with the crowd here.

As said what it is worth I agree completely with your statements in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes
In regards to the firing passes issue, quality of pilots or airframes is irrelevant. All you need is a couple hundred newbs in an obsolescent escort fighter and the bombers will always get thru. I'm not sure, but I believe Rader or Greyjoy actually tested this. They loaded up some squadrons with completely unskilled pilots and sent them out to escort some bombers. The escorts were slaughtered (as always) but the bombers got thru w/o a scratch.

Quite.

I think there are real issues and I'm attempting to be constructive, but I'm not finding this a very constructive thread, tbh.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

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.

Took a quick look but didn't see an applicable CR. On what dates did your carrier CAP face a raid with 100 or more escorts? I would be curious to see how your CAP performed in this instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Can you stack 20 CVs in a hex in 1945? Yes. Should you? No.

It makes no odds if you do or not. It's the 300 escort max limit which is the issue, not glomming 20 CVs into one hex. The problem if anything is on the LBA side, not the CVs.

If you split your 20 CVs into eight or nine TFs, some in the same hex, some not, you get the LBA targeting model working for you and not against you. If when you use nine TFs the Japanese can still get 300 escorts per raid, then, as the Elf says, don't go there yet. You aren't ready.

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: LoBaron

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

Too many player think that it should be possible to stop a well coordinated raid, at least to an extent where the raid is unable to deal a notable ammount of damage.
I brought a similar argument, which was dismissed as not comparable. Personally I think it compares quite well.

The problem with large scale raids is that they are a lot more difficult to intercept. For CAP to engage sufficiently there is so much time required to scramble,
get into proper formation, align with the (assumed heavily escorted) bomber stream, avoid and/or deal with escort fighters vectored to engage the threat,
get into proper position to mount an attack run of a scale it overwhelms defensive fire, pass through the bomber formation, and then regain tactical position
again to repeat that stunt.

With several hundreds of planes involved on both sides, for this style of attacks that often means only a very low number of attack runs until the raid reaches
target. WitP AE displays this issue quite nicely I think.

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.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


If you split your 20 CVs into eight or nine TFs, some in the same hex, some not, you get the LBA targeting model working for you and not against you. If when you use nine TFs the Japanese can still get 300 escorts per raid, then, as the Elf says, don't go there yet. You aren't ready.

Yes, I am starting to think that this is the solution. Gonna try it anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

TheElf,

Please, please, oh please do not fall for the old conjuring trick being presented with the aim of pressuring you into changing things when there is no sound fundamental good reason to do so. Too often in the past code has been changed to accommodate poor players who complain when their lack of skill/understanding is exposed. To put up now the detailed reasons for my plea would be too time consuming but here are a few briefly presented reasons.

1. You were generous in dismissing kindly in the other related thread the validity of the so called air combat tests. I shall be much more direct. For the reasons you gave plus a few other reasons you did not state, those tests had zero validity. They have been described by a well known forum contributor as "vanity tests". They prove absolutely nothing.

2. All the proposed coding solutions are difficult to code because they are arbitrary, and there is no development team available to do all the work. Plus they all fail because they fail to address the fundamental problem which is that RTS style players who attempt to play a game which is grounded in real world parameters will always, at some stage, reach the edge of the cliff.

3. The game already has the solution to the perceived problems. Unfortunately it requires players to do all the necessary unsexy things which the RTS crowd don't like to do. Those game areas which could be further improved involve zero coding but an awful lot of OOB reconfiguring a la the DaBabes family of mods. No one, and I mean no one, is volunteering their services to undertake all that hard yakka for the official scenarios.

4. Some posters in this thread and elsewhere have repeatedly poointed out the incorrect strategy and tactics employed. Those who continuously shout down the messengers of what is the correct approach fail to understand the points. Here are a few common errors.

(a) Attrition of the Japanese forces is cited as the correct approach. This is wrong because attrition is a very dumb military strategy. Ask Haig, Joffre and Falkenhayn. What advocates of attrition really should be iterating is that degradation of the enemy force structure, plus misdirection of the enemy military assets, plus pinning enemy forces elsewhere is required before a direct approach to the Home Islands can be undertaken with any reasonable comfort level. None of these elements has anything to do with attrition. In fact given the basic game design, compounded by playing the ahistorical scenario 2, attrition particularly of air assets is to the benefit of Japan.

(b) Several posters are advocating coding additional air coordination penalties. Mein Gott, they already exist in the game. Instead because a player places over 4000 aircraft in a single airbase and has the need for only 250 aviation support personnel present at that same airbase to maintain this surreal air fleet, you are being asked to undertake complex recoding. All that is required in this instance is two things, firstly properly implement the AE decision to remove the 250 aviation support upper cap for human players, and secondly adopt the DaBabes treatment of the multifacets of engineers. The first might be relatively easily accomplished but the second isn't (see point 3 above).

(c) Others are practically demanding that coding be introduced to guarantee carrier fleets will be able to utilise fully 1000 fighters on fleet CAP. Again a misunderstanding of the real world and what the existing game engine is capable of. Just how long would it be before an Allied player sends a 20 CV fleet to act as an air combat trap deploying only fighters, approximately 2000. Would we then have demands to up the limits? Whatever limits are introduced, someone will sooner rather than later come up with a counter. The only correct way to deal with that sort of a problem is with skillful play.

(d) Others complain about the ablative armour effect to the bombers provided by the escorts. This too can be defeated. The days of when a battle incurred entirely within a day, usually over just 1-2 hours are long gone. Battles can and do rage for days, weeks. Campaigns for months. Let the strike package approach with its ablative armour. On day 1 the bombers will get through, the ablative armour will be hacked out of the sky. The escorting fighter groups will return to their airbases and perhaps will be able to draw in replacements or be rotated out and replaced by fresh fighter units. So on day 2 of the battle another strike package could possibly be assembled with its supporting ablative armour. Same result. However this time, the fighter losses, even if supply is present and the pools contain airframes, cannot immediately be made good as there is already in the game a 7 day restocking limit on airframes. The skillful recipient of these huges strike packages factors into his planning these game elements and assembles his forces to absorb the impact of day 1, day 2 ... to come out ultimately on top.


5. All this has come to a head as a result of the rader-GreyJoy match. The single biggest reason why that match has a problem, is due to a single fact which no one ever comments upon. That is they have no "objective" victory conditions. An old thread by Bullwinkle argued, and in my view, quite correctly that a game such as AE needs auto victory. Section 17 of the manual deals with the game's victory conditions. Unfortuneately far too many players like to puff up their chests and declaim s.17 doesn't apply to me, I'll know when I have "won". Well guess what the fundamental sillyness of that approach is exceedingly well demonstrated in the rader-GreyJoy match. When GreyJoy landed on Hokkaido the peanut gallery said the war was now won by the Allies. Now after the failure of the subsequent follow up Allied strategy and tactics there is much wailing that the Allies can't win. The victory conditions outlined in s17 of the manual fairly represent the historical outcome of WWII. In mid August 1945 Japan surrendered because it was totally defeated (except in the eyes of certain fanatical suicidal elites) without the need for an Allied landing on the Home Islands. GreyJoy couldn't adopt that approach because he had been outplayed by his opponent and could not achieve a victory as per s.17 of the manual. Instead he chose a Hail Mary to bypass s.17 of the manual. The results of the poor play has come home to roost.

Alfred

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

What are the weaknesses I see? Well there are several, and I won’t go into each and every one, but will speak to the one that generates most of the discussion here:
Uber Air battles. This is an easy one. It is a legacy weakness, and one that we spent an awful lot of time trying to address, uber CAP, bloody results, leaky CAP, you name it, this game does not do well. That said we made great strides, and expert players have shown that you CAN minimize the impact of this weakness by playing carefully. But you have to know what is reasonable and what isn’t. One of the ways to do this is to try to understand how real world Air Operations work. If you do a little light reading you will find that Air Operations in WWII were cyclical in nature. Sustained heavy combat Ops were difficult to maintain. Maintenance cycles and fatigue, force flow, logistics, often did not allow a “Balls to the Wall” “throw everything at them but the kitchen sink” mentality. Air forces spent themselves against each other, made gains or not, and then went into a phase of rebuilding.

Cheers!
Elf