RE: State of the Air War in AE

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: State of the Air War in AE

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 >> RE: State of the Air War in AE

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 2:04:25 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
it isn't (unfortunately). Ok, it may be reduced, but the reduction is so low you don't notice if you want to fly those two thousand aircraft strike. There should be nearly NO aircraft flying without aviation support. At least this is what I am thinking about it, because who really is fueling and arming all those thousands of aircraft? The crews?

This is also why bypassing bases isn't all that good. You can fly strikes for at least a day or two off of an empty rock if need be. Some Lilies on a one way trip can do damage.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 211

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 2:20:17 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

which wouldn't solve the problem of the 2000 aircraft strike in a day though and we are at start again. All that is needed is that single day. Reducing the total number of aircraft striking in a single day should be the goal IMO. Or limiting the size of the strikes.

So what is the problem?

Is it that 2000 aircraft are striking in a day?

Or is it that there are too many leakers from a 2000 a/c strike which would go towards A2A resolution?

So if a player has 2000AV at a base should he not be allowed to launch 2000 a/c?

Or is it too much coordination?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 212

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 2:44:41 PM

LoBaron

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

I am with you on this, treespider.

The main question needs to be: what do we want to achieve?

My personal view is that the goal should be to reduce the ability of the player to force extreme number of sorties per strike
to a level, so the end of the scale where the code gets troubles is as difficult to reach as possible, except if you use bad play
on a strategic level (e.g. exposing one contested area on purpose to concentrate on another contested area).

Currently the problem is, that in case you got high concentration of aviation support in one area and need to react to a threat
in another area, you only need to relocate an extreme number of planes to this area and accept a 25% penalty on
alpha strikes.

With the proposed changes you would need to relocate the aviation support as well.

As long as on player does not play into the hand of the other this forces dispersion of aviation support to ensure you can react on
all fronts to an occuring threat.

It also prevents stationing stood down squadrons on a 60AV airfield, wait for all planes to be ready, and then be able to launch a single
huge alpha strike to overwhelm, because the AV is the limiting factor (by more than the current 25%).

This would reduce a high percentage of the massive airbattle occurances I think, or at least make strategies supporting those concentrations
less attractive.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/13/2012 4:28:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 213

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 3:02:55 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Or is it that there are too many leakers from a 2000 a/c strike which would go towards A2A resolution?

They aren't really leakers, its due to fighters taking the fall for them. I think the issue there is complex though, and the fighters taking the fall for them issue only happens in huge battles.

quote:

Or is it too much coordination?

Yup, IMO.

The system is fine for smaller battles, so enforcing a series of smaller battles in preference to one ginormous one seems to be the most logical way of dealing with it.

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 214

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 3:21:34 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

which wouldn't solve the problem of the 2000 aircraft strike in a day though and we are at start again. All that is needed is that single day. Reducing the total number of aircraft striking in a single day should be the goal IMO. Or limiting the size of the strikes.

So what is the problem?

Is it that 2000 aircraft are striking in a day?

Or is it that there are too many leakers from a 2000 a/c strike which would go towards A2A resolution?

So if a player has 2000AV at a base should he not be allowed to launch 2000 a/c?

Or is it too much coordination?

IMO, the strike size. At some point there is this one or two strikes that are big enough to wipe out any Allied carrier fleet. Needless to say the same happens to the Japanese too and even easier. Having aircraft not fly that don't have aviation support would aim at the strike sizes, no fuel, no bombs, no bullets, no aircraft participating in a strike.

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 215

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 3:40:05 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

Increasing need for AV support to reduce mission sizes and op-tempo is one thing I would support, but it sounds not sufficient alone.

For one, high densities of planes on an "airfield", even if it is a level 9 complex", should incur penalties in participating even if an equally high number of AV were available. The amount of AV needed to get a number of planes in the air should not scale linearly with AV, but there should be a natural limit. Think of the efficiency of managing projects: one is straight forward, two and each one already gets less than 50% attention, and if you distribute your attention between 50 every day, you wont get much done for any of them. I guess the same would be true for organizing your AV, the ordering, stocking and distribution of spare parts, etc. And should be true for putting two dozen divisions in a hex in china, or 1000 planes on a base in Burma. There are natural limits to force efficiency, base sizes etc. Say for example maybe 100 AV can handle still 100 planes, but 500AV should only be able to handle some 400 planes or so?
The catch with addressing land bases and LBA AV needs is of course it will dis-balance it in respect to naval air...

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
It also prevents stationing stood down squadrons on a 60AV airfield, wait for all planes to be ready, and then be able to launch a single huge alpha strike to overwhelm, because the AV is the limiting factor (by more than the current 25%).

Per se, that wouldn't sound wrong: If it took 2-3 days to "repair and ready" planes, I would imagine a based stacked with fueled and armed planes in preparation -- resulting in increased danger to attacks, which is left to the dice in any case.

This gets back to Treespiders point, in fact: perhaps, if damages to planes aside from combat damage were a bit higher, more time would be needed until the next mission (or suffer reduced flight size). This would affect their 2nd operation cycle. Now, for the 1st mission after transfer, how about the penalties for the transfer missions? If these were higher also, you couldn't shuttle squadrons in and have them immediately ready the next day without plenty of AV?

Aside from that, I still have a bit of a bad aftertaste from some of the large CV battles with LBA support in the AARs, in which CAP efficiency seemed to be rather "strange". I don't say weak, since CAP usually takes down a lot of escorts, while escorts in turn often do not do much damage to CAP. One of the PzB vs Andy Mac contest comes to mind, in the DEI, which may in fact have been a totally fine outcome, but given the recent discussion of ablative armor and the 200 passes limit, leaves a bit of an aftertaste. At least the former factor seems to also be effective even for smaller strikes (...safe your Oscars for the day...). Maybe I just lack a bit of believe in the air model in a few situations, because I lack the details to fully understand all of it, for e.g. what this pass limit is to represent. As with so many things, I am certain the AE team must have also conceived that detail very well...

< Message edited by janh -- 3/13/2012 3:44:01 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 216

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 3:45:27 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I Say for example maybe 100 AV can handle still 100 planes, but 500AV should only be able to handle some 400 planes or so?

Why ? I mean 100 soldiers can handle 100 rifles and 500 can handle 500 rifles or not ? 1 AV is the ground crew required to handle a 1 engined plane, thats straightforward to me so 2 AV still can service lets say three planes but suboptimal of course. Ah maybe I missed something but I dont understand this point.

< Message edited by Gr�fin Zeppelin -- 3/13/2012 3:46:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 217

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 4:09:26 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I Say for example maybe 100 AV can handle still 100 planes, but 500AV should only be able to handle some 400 planes or so?

Why ? I mean 100 soldiers can handle 100 rifles and 500 can handle 500 rifles or not ? 1 AV is the ground crew required to handle a 1 engined plane, thats straightforward to me so 2 AV still can service lets say three planes but suboptimal of course. Ah maybe I missed something but I dont understand this point.

What I mean is some sort of overhead, a limit above which efficiency decreases. Yes, 500 men can still handle 500 rifles, but if you want all of them to storm a small complex, that may not be most "force efficient". 50 men perhaps could have achieved, the same, 500 are better, but they are not 10x better.
Think of optimal frontages for a unit, say a division. There is a range where it is efficiently working, then there is too narrow , or too wide. Hope you get what I mean.

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 218

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 4:09:40 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Here�s what I think is the �issue� with the Air Combat model, and one that probably can�t be changed wihtout an air-model re-write.
The issue: Strike Detection and Interception

Example: Today in my Downfall game, I flew a sweep mission to Tokyo with P51�s based out of Iwo. I flew a sweep mission to Chiba (1 hex SE of Tokyo) with P38�s from Iwo.
Japan had all bases capped. My sweep to Tokyo went in first and blasted the IJ multitudes of Zero�s. My sweep mission to Chiba went in second and didn�t fare as well against Chiba � as Chiba had Georges and Shindens.
In effect, my first sweep flew �past� the cap over Chiba and hit Tokyo, when in reality, the IJ would be intercepting the P51�s long before Tokyo.

Example 2: I have a CV fleet at Iwo, and 2 hexes north of the CV fleet I have a first line of pickets. 4 hexes north of the CV fleet I have a 2nd line of pickets. All my pickets have radar. Lets say the IJ sorties against my CV fleet. This strike would be detected 4 hexes + �picket radar range modifier� away from the CVs. My fighters would/should begin flying towards this strike pretty quickly � they should intercept �not� in the CV hex, but at least a hex or maybe 2 away. This air battle should have numerous intercepts/combats at hexes away from the CV before the strike package can even �think� about launching torps at my CV�s. But it doesn�t � the strike misses all the pickets and their detection and only whats �in� the CV�s hex matters.

Now, this is an issue that I don�t see being changed. This would make the air combat model a �tactical� level game, when we�re playing a strategic level game.

So how do address the model?

A workaround could be exponentially increasing coordination penalties as the number of air groups assigned to a target increases. This would �break up� the massive strike into a much more realistic �3-4 air groups here, attack 3-4 air groups there� as would occur during a massive raid, for the simple fact that in a 1000 plane raid, those escorts on the �west side� of the formation would probably never make it to the �east side� of the formation to attack CAP coming from the East (and vice versa).

I think we can all agree that the air model works pretty well at �smaller numbers� (i.e. before ablative escorts come into play), so the solution would be to make the air combat model stick to the smaller numbers. I find it much more realistic and could address the issue.

The key in the coordination penalty is to *increase* it based on # of groups assigned to a target. Now, that �# of strikes assigned to a target� is determined by the player (in setting port/ground attacks to a single hex) or the computer (when it decides to sortie 5 Netty Groups and 10 Zero groups to a CV fleet).

Of course, it�ll work until someone finds a way to break �this� model and then were back at square one of the �Uber Cap� vs �Ablative Escort� argument.

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 219

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 5:12:19 PM

Captain Cruft

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

I'm absolutely fine with the air model the way it is. Of course there are numerous imperfections, but they are the same for both sides. Nothing even approaches a game-breaker IMO. The sub problem is far worse.

The map consists of more than two uber-hexes duking it out against each other. If what you are doing doesn't work try something different somewhere else.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 220

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 5:27:24 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

janh, I think you are going too far.

Some of the proposals being put forth here look good and I strongly suspect that the developers (in private as they need to) are looking at how certain things would mesh with the code and discussing this 'behind the curtain'.

But it's also really easy to move the weight too far to the other side of the canoe and end up in the same water, and no better off. Modest changes can have big effects, especially if more than one modest change is made.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 221

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 6:25:42 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

What I mean is some sort of overhead, a limit above which efficiency decreases. Yes, 500 men can still handle 500 rifles, but if you want all of them to storm a small complex, that may not be most "force efficient". 50 men perhaps could have achieved, the same, 500 are better, but they are not 10x better.
Think of optimal frontages for a unit, say a division. There is a range where it is efficiently working, then there is too narrow , or too wide. Hope you get what I mean.

Aaah I see, thank you for the clarification.

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 222

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 8:33:04 PM

frank1970

Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline

Maybe, there are just too many planes in the game.
Is it possible to just eliminate planes as "rubbish" when the plane fatigue hits 100 or so?
Just on the airfield, without loosing the pilot.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 223

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 8:40:12 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

There is no mechanism in the game for planes to wear out and be written off. Even Bombing the Reich didn't go that route. Not aware of any wargame that ever tried.

_____________________________

(in reply to frank1970)

Post #: 224

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 8:48:06 PM

Commander Stormwolf

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

AE did a good job to reduce the number of allied planes (especially 4E) to
the correct historical numbers - good job AE team

now it is time to do the same for japanese side..
.. limit the engine expansion to 100 per month..
... make separate HI points for AC and ships

then game is almost perfect

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 225

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 8:55:19 PM

frank1970

Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline

Maybe much easier to do:
double the amount of engines needed per plane.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 226

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 9:09:30 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Maybe much easier to do:
double the amount of engines needed per plane.

Ah why not simply double the cost per engine in that case ?

_____________________________

(in reply to frank1970)

Post #: 227

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 9:18:29 PM

aztez

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

These operational aircraft could be tied down airfield sizes per base:

level 1-3 = Maxium of 30-70 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 4-6 = Maxium of 60-125 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 7-8 = Maxium of 100-200 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 9 = Maxium of 175-300 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.

The maxium numbers tied down aviatiation support available plus weather permitting etc.

Thus you would hardly get those maxium numbers without extraordinary luck.

That should scale down the huge strikes quite a lot and give more historical feel of things.

If the AA adjustments made Da Babes are implemented also (or close to it) than would force quite a diffrent gaming styles.

The game engine should be able to handle such numbers and make it more of naval game too.

You definately could hurt carriers if someone is foolish enough to sail close mutually supporting bases too.

You could also force bombers (torpedo/divebombers included) to remain 1 turn standown orders if transfering lets say 8 hexes or over. That way you cannot just warp planes in and out without preparing for it. Should lower the operational tempo quite a lot too.

< Message edited by aztez -- 3/13/2012 9:27:38 PM >

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 228

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 9:39:41 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

This is a very interesting topic, and I applaud the majority for keeping it focused and non-emotional. Just one observation from many years immersed in reading the history of WW2, is that launching massive air strikes (multiple hundreds of planes) against naval targets spotted within a 24-hour time span simply didn't occur in this era. The Marianas battles might be the closest analogy, and even here the LBA Japanese attacks were extremely uncoordinated, with predictable results. As others have noted, what made Okinawa so dangerous to the Allies was the long term presence of the Naval assets just offshore. This allowed the Japanese plenty of time to prepare and coordinate their kamikaze strikes. Accordingly if a player parks a carrier fleet off the Home Islands, they all deserve to sink. But quick in-and-out raids should be almost impossible to counter.

Again, that's real life and we're talking about a game here. But the RL lesson is that coordinating large raids is hard as hell when you are dealing with a known target and have plenty of time to prepare. The coordination penalties should be enormous when you have one day to try and launch attacks against recently spotted Naval assets.

< Message edited by Kull -- 3/13/2012 9:40:33 PM >

(in reply to aztez)

Post #: 229

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/13/2012 10:01:15 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Doubling Service factor, doubling AV required, doubling the HI cost, etc. etc. etc.... none of these address *the 2k plane strike*, for even if you double all that, limit number of planes flying from a base based on base level, etc. you still can produce 1 massive 2k plane strike... and if you can do it, it will happen.

I tend to think that the game is actually ok when it comes to Japan's economy. After all, who here plays the "actual" WW2 scenario - Scenario #1 - with PDU *off* ??? If you aren't playing this scenario, then you are truly playing a fantasy game and that�s all that need be said.

The only way to deal with it is to break up the strike into multiple strikes. The way to do that is to increase coordination penalties exponentially when the number of airgroups reach a certain number, so that your 2k plane strike doesn't happen in a single combat in the am/pm phase - but happens in multiple combat actions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 230

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 1:02:22 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There is no mechanism in the game for planes to wear out and be written off.

...well, planes do get written off as too damaged to repair after missions in AE fairly frequently. I've never counted but I see it.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 231

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 1:11:02 AM

Justus2

Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

This is a very interesting topic, and I applaud the majority for keeping it focused and non-emotional. Just one observation from many years immersed in reading the history of WW2, is that launching massive air strikes (multiple hundreds of planes) against naval targets spotted within a 24-hour time span simply didn't occur in this era. The Marianas battles might be the closest analogy, and even here the LBA Japanese attacks were extremely uncoordinated, with predictable results. As others have noted, what made Okinawa so dangerous to the Allies was the long term presence of the Naval assets just offshore. This allowed the Japanese plenty of time to prepare and coordinate their kamikaze strikes. Accordingly if a player parks a carrier fleet off the Home Islands, they all deserve to sink. But quick in-and-out raids should be almost impossible to counter.

Again, that's real life and we're talking about a game here. But the RL lesson is that coordinating large raids is hard as hell when you are dealing with a known target and have plenty of time to prepare. The coordination penalties should be enormous when you have one day to try and launch attacks against recently spotted Naval assets.

I think this points to a simple (partial) solution, that seems to be overlooked. It has always seemed strange to me that planes can rebase instantly and still launch strikes the same day. If rebasing used up the plane's 'mission' for the day, so they couldnt strike until the following day, it would make it much harder to mass on short-duration raids. It would also discourage the player from massing their air too quickly, as they would be very succeptible to a deception if they leave another area vulnerable, and couldn't instantly transfer back.

Also, combining this with ops damage for rebasing aircraft and the AV limits being discussed, would really limit the ability to suddenly launch 2,000 aircraft from a base with limited AV support. If realistic AV support was needed to repair the planes damaged on the transfer in, you would have much smaller strikes flying out in the first couple days. Now, if there is sufficient AV support, and the fleet hangs around for a week, then maybe you could build up an alpha strike, but as Kull stated, they would deserve it at that point.

I remember reading recently in an article on USAAF ops in DEI, how some fighter squadrons that tried base-hopping from Australia to Java might be lucky to end up with 3 operational fighters by the last leg. Crashes during transfers or on landing (especially at extended range, into unfamiliar airfields) would render many aircraft unserviceable for extended periods.

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 232

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 2:22:38 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

level 1-3 = Maxium of 30-70 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 4-6 = Maxium of 60-125 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 7-8 = Maxium of 100-200 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.
level 9 = Maxium of 175-300 aircraft potentially airborne including search patrols, CAP etc.

This is the answer. Simple. Doesn't require rework and more realistic. Flying thousands of aircraft from a single hex, totally coordinated, is what is causing the model to get of whack.

Erik Rutins, I believe, said that beta had reduced airfields and was met with complaints from the fan base. Well, the result is a combat model that can't scale. Reduce the airfields. That affects both sides equally.

(in reply to aztez)

Post #: 233

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 2:31:40 AM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

It won't fix the problem, though.

Consider... the US takes the Phillipines in '44 and builds up all the airbases in northern Phillipine Islands to max level (there's like 10 of them that can reach level 8/9). US decides to take Formosa. Us launches an airstrike against main Japanese base at Taiko (sp?). 3000 aircraft flying from multiple fields go into to Taiko on one coordinated strike, and flatten it... Problem remains.

Consider #2: US moves into range of Japan, and their 100000 level 9 airbases. Japan wipes out US CV fleet with one massive strike flying from multiple fields. Japan is the impregnable fortress in this case - as Japan has the ability to launch the massive raid with ablative escorts, and the US doesn't. "History" is totally turned on it's head.

All this would do would force US players to go through the Phillipines or China to get 10 bases to launch the massive strike.

One thing that we all need to remember is that "if it can be done, it will be done".

< Message edited by AcePylut -- 3/14/2012 2:35:50 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 234

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 2:46:52 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Only if coordination remains as affective as it currently does. So I should amend. Increase coordination penalties along with reducing airfield size. Reduced coordination means less planes hitting target at same time, which works better within current model. Might get lucky and a massive strike gets through, but odds are they will come through from multiple bases on different times throughout the day. Also a bit more realistic and also affects both sides.

Not an ideal solution, but at least that better than the limits currently imposed on the model. IMO, current model Japan is already impregnable, so anything different is better. Plus, we need to be realistic. A rewrite isn't going to happen. So whatever is done has to be within current framework as much as possible.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 235

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 2:48:25 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

I agree with AcePylut: Even if we put a hard-cap on the number of planes that can fly from an airbase of a given level, and even if we remove the game mechanic that allows 250 AV to service an unlimited number of planes, there would still be several key points on the map where enough level 9 airfields exist in close enough proximity to create the massive strikes.

I suppose you could try to neuter the amount of flyable planes further, but then you risk swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. That is, to be put in a situation where too few aircraft can fly from a level 9 airbase than would be historically plausible.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 236

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 2:49:35 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

...well, planes do get written off as too damaged to repair after missions in AE fairly frequently. I've never counted but I see it.

op losses have always been a part of the game. I was referring to write offs due specifically to an airframe wearing out. In real life aging airframes that had been used once too often harshly were often retired or reduced to scrap. In the Pacific worn out B-17's ended their days as transports or operating in quiet Theaters. In WitP as in other games, a plane stays active, in peak condition for its entire "service life" Only thing that ends its existence is loss by combat or a die roll op loss due to crashing from damage/weather/Zeus etc.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 237

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 2:51:47 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

That's another source of whining that doesn't need to be tapped.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 238

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 3:21:12 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

To frame this discussion, you have to get realistic. There isn't going to be a rewrite of the air combat model for a PATCH. They may do it for the next release of the game, because they can make money from it. For a patch, no. So discussions about air frame life, etc., are out of scope for this discussion.

Increase coordination penalties and Japan's 10 or 20 airfields will be a crap shoot. Yes, there may a 1 in 100 chance that they all coordinate, but otherwise, groups will come into battle at different times thereby reducing or removing the hard coded limits currently in the model. 20 allied carriers off Japan, hopefully in different CarDivs will have a pretty good chance to form effective CAP, since they are all in the same hex or adjoining hexes, and may provide a pretty good chance to at least do serious damage to the incoming squadrons. Same with Allies trying to build up 10 level 9 airfields in PI to smash Formosa. Eventually, it will happen since Formosa doesn't have 10 airfields, but there will be losses by the allies because they won't coordinate as well. IMO, balanced. Of course, both sides can put up LRCAP against a base or whatever and increase the cap levels. Coordination and airfield size, IMO is the problem.

Slows the game down a bit also, which is good.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 239

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/14/2012 3:26:56 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I suppose you could try to neuter the amount of flyable planes further, but then you risk swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. That is, to be put in a situation where too few aircraft can fly from a level 9 airbase than would be historically plausible.

Current model is broken anyway at end game. Nothing to lose, quite frankly. BTW, does anyone really KNOW how many airplanes launched from the largest airfields in the pacific? I certainly would like to know that.

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 240