RE: 1945!

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: 1945!

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: 1945!

Page: << < prev 82 83 [84] 85 86 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:35:37 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

EDIT the job of the fighter is ofcourse also to shoot down the enemy bomber.. just as important as protecting own bombers...

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/1/2013 5:40:29 PM >

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2491

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:38:27 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

That debate ended up with one fine gentleman leaving our forum

Who was that?

We have not heard from CannoeRebel in quite awhile .. the criticisms of his use of xAKLs and xAK's as pickets caused an incendiary dialogue and personal attacks that CR just shrugged and left our forum ...
I would have liked to see Quixote and his unique thoughts on December 7th vs. CR and his finding the IJ's weakness and exploiting it ...I suspect we will never see anything like that soon ..

Me, I just block these fools no matter how much positive information they have .. once somebody goes to the level of personal attacks .. they go on my blocked list ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2492

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:41:01 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 2493

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:41:48 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

In the latest Beta's and depending on circumstances the difference of altitude does not have to be that dramatic. I just smacked an LCU with 2E's at 4K and the Zero's were at 21K .. no contest ..

At night 8K altitude differences and no radar, and I have had bombers get away Scott clean ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 2494

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:43:33 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

Ah. I didn't make the connection with him and planes versus converted trawlers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2495

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:47:00 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

Bullwinkle, it all depends on the situation. If your objective is to achieve local superiority bombing aircraft on the ground might be a good idea.

It simply is not black and white....

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2496

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:50:48 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ah. I didn't make the connection with him and planes versus converted trawlers.

Well there is a whole contention around some ships worth less than military ships being used as pickets. Whether these platforms are converted trawlers or xAK's

From a game standpoint it is nearly impossible to simulate reality unless the tactical turns turned into real time FPS simulation .. so we try to do what we believe does this for our worldview .. some have an emotional stake in their perception of reality ...

IN the end .. we lost a friend ..

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2497

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:52:35 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

Bullwinkle, it all depends on the situation. If your objective is to achieve local superiority bombing aircraft on the ground might be a good idea.

It simply is not black and white....

If only to get a lucky die roll and start a discussion on how borked night bombing is ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 2498

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 6:13:18 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

Bullwinkle, it all depends on the situation. If your objective is to achieve local superiority bombing aircraft on the ground might be a good idea.

It simply is not black and white....

I agree in the short term. I'm talking whole-war. Getting ready for the endgame. I don't see a lot of that thinking in Allied AARs. Maybe it's just me. But 4Es are strategic platforms. They ought to be used in the main on strategic targets. IOW, kill the economy. I'd rather start on the head and work down. The body will be dead long before I get to the knees.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 2499

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 6:36:36 PM

Miller

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

The problem for some Jap players is that they expect 1942 game results in 1945.....just aint gonna happen unless the Allied player is a total noob.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2500

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 6:48:23 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

The problem for some Jap players is that they expect 1942 game results in 1945.....just aint gonna happen unless the Allied player is a total noob.

What might be worse is a bunch of decisions in 1942 coming to roost in 1945 and then game mechanics that were good in 1942 .. become borked in 1945 ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 2501

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 7:28:11 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

The problem for some Jap players is that they expect 1942 game results in 1945.....just aint gonna happen unless the Allied player is a total noob.

What might be worse is a bunch of decisions in 1942 coming to roost in 1945 and then game mechanics that were good in 1942 .. become borked in 1945 ...

That is true for many things in the game. Generally I would say the game is much better in 42 and 43. Not only HRs and whatnot break down but the game itself doesn�t work nearly as well in late 44 and 45. It just feels like everything is optimised for early game and 44 and 45 was added just an afterthought.

Simplification of course. But personally I think I prefer the early years of 42 and 43. Despite all the setbacks I suffered I had way more fun then compared to what I have now. I miss sitting down with a coffee/beer/whiskey watching the entire replay from start to finish without touching ESC. I would say that was probably the most enjoyable part of the game. Cheering for each downed Tojo or new ace gained. Each DD sunk.

I miss those days.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2502

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 7:46:56 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

Simplification of course. But personally I think I prefer the early years of 42 and 43

Those years can get really weird if a certain IJ script is not followed. For example, in scenario #1 if the Allies execute extended capital with 4E support in 1942 the IJ can get ahistorically creamed .. if the IJ invade India units are withdrawn while India is in total crisis .. something AFB's cringe about ... Another problem is the attempt at IJ autovictory within scenario #1 including DBB modifications and the game rarely makes it to 1944 ...the overextension of the IJ results in a disaster and a quiet resignation ...

But if the IJ follow a reasonable script I would agree that the drama of 1942 - 1943 is a lot of fun for both sides ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2503

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 7:49:10 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Exactly my point. Care to show me one AAR where a P-47 or Corsair has flown anywhere under 10k feet?

There isn't any.

It's not players that are preventing planes from doing what they did in real life, it's the air code. It's also why flying an escort mission is a mass death sentence for pilots, and why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

I don't have any yet. When I do you'll see this.

Heck, in my game with Cliff I just drove a large Japanese tank formation away from Urumchi with BIPLANES! Destroyed/disabled about 15 tanks. He withdrew, giving the base time to up the forts and repair disablement. (If he's reading this I don't mind. )

Escort in the game is there to get the bombers through. I agree the loss rates are high. But the bombers do good work if you don't constantly set them to make readily-repairable holes in runways. I personally think sweeps are vastly overused, especially by Japan. But Allied players need to learn that just because he sweeps you don't have to fight him there. You can let him waste supply and ops losses drilling holes in the sky. No sweep ever hurt a grunt.

My opinion is a lot of players are in "air ruts." They have formed habits, many pre-betas, and continue to do the same old same old. Their choice.

That was embarrassing

. I should have known better, to wait for the next shipment of supply. I'm still coming for you, though

. Those biplanes pack a punch with 2x100kg bombs!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2504

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 7:54:21 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Lokasenna,

Ever considered doing an AAR of your game vs Bull?

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2505

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 7:54:37 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

The problem for some Jap players is that they expect 1942 game results in 1945.....just aint gonna happen unless the Allied player is a total noob.

What might be worse is a bunch of decisions in 1942 coming to roost in 1945 and then game mechanics that were good in 1942 .. become borked in 1945 ...

That is true for many things in the game. Generally I would say the game is much better in 42 and 43. Not only HRs and whatnot break down but the game itself doesn�t work nearly as well in late 44 and 45. It just feels like everything is optimised for early game and 44 and 45 was added just an afterthought.

Simplification of course. But personally I think I prefer the early years of 42 and 43. Despite all the setbacks I suffered I had way more fun then compared to what I have now. I miss sitting down with a coffee/beer/whiskey watching the entire replay from start to finish without touching ESC. I would say that was probably the most enjoyable part of the game. Cheering for each downed Tojo or new ace gained. Each DD sunk.

I miss those days.

Maybe the HRs breaking down and the game engine breaking down are linked - maybe the engine "breaks down" (i.e., spits out undesirable/hard to swallow results) as a result of those very HRs!

The modeling in this game is pretty realistic.

Going back a few posts, the example of bombers going in low at 4k vs. a CAP up high. Discrepancies of 4k vs. 30k, and 4k vs. 21k, were given. It doesn't even need to be that much. Without radar present, the CAP can be at 10k and bombers at 4k will get through before the CAP can engage them. Gotta be really careful with CAP altitudes early on against a cheeky Allied player.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2506

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 7:55:14 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Lokasenna,

Ever considered doing an AAR of your game vs Bull?

I have my notes, and plan to post something at some point, but it definitely won't be a daily AAR. More of an occasional update thing.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2507

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:20:12 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I think the engine "breaking down" is more about the numbers then anything. In 42-43 you have perhaps 50 fighters vs 50 fighters. In 45 you have 1000 fighters vs 1000 fighters. As I said my personal feeling is that the game just works and feels better and makes more sense when numbers are more manageable.

Having done an AAR I have to say I enjoy that actually more than playing the game.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2508

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:24:03 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I miss those days.

Next time overtly play for VPs and go for an auto-vic like a dog after a steak. You'll watch the replays in 1944, believe me.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2509

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:24:31 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Exactly my point. Care to show me one AAR where a P-47 or Corsair has flown anywhere under 10k feet?

There isn't any.

It's not players that are preventing planes from doing what they did in real life, it's the air code. It's also why flying an escort mission is a mass death sentence for pilots, and why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

I don't have any yet. When I do you'll see this.

Heck, in my game with Cliff I just drove a large Japanese tank formation away from Urumchi with BIPLANES! Destroyed/disabled about 15 tanks. He withdrew, giving the base time to up the forts and repair disablement. (If he's reading this I don't mind. )

Escort in the game is there to get the bombers through. I agree the loss rates are high. But the bombers do good work if you don't constantly set them to make readily-repairable holes in runways. I personally think sweeps are vastly overused, especially by Japan. But Allied players need to learn that just because he sweeps you don't have to fight him there. You can let him waste supply and ops losses drilling holes in the sky. No sweep ever hurt a grunt.

My opinion is a lot of players are in "air ruts." They have formed habits, many pre-betas, and continue to do the same old same old. Their choice.

FWIW in my game with Apbarog we have a gentlemens agreement not to use silly altitude for planes. We're only upto June 42 so no corsairs but most air raids and planes fly between 6 and 15k with only a few raids at 20k from memory.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2510

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:25:05 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

The modeling in this game is pretty realistic.

I am not sure I agree with this, but I would agree the game abstractions certainly provide a set of realistic decisions for the players. However, I will go on record that most if not all in this forum disagree with my worldview on the air combat module

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2511

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:27:36 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

That was embarrassing . I should have known better, to wait for the next shipment of supply. I'm still coming for you, though . Those biplanes pack a punch with 2x100kg bombs!

For me it was "I got biplanes. I throw biplanes at him. Whee! We die!"

The bombs are stored between the pilot's legs and thrown by hand, 1917 style. After that, stale rice balls can be preti nasti.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2512

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:28:55 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Lokasenna,

Ever considered doing an AAR of your game vs Bull?

Noooooo! He's kicking my betarkus. Has Darwin already, all the phone numbers of the local chicks . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2513

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:30:53 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

The problem for some Jap players is that they expect 1942 game results in 1945.....just aint gonna happen unless the Allied player is a total noob.

What might be worse is a bunch of decisions in 1942 coming to roost in 1945 and then game mechanics that were good in 1942 .. become borked in 1945 ...

That is true for many things in the game. Generally I would say the game is much better in 42 and 43. Not only HRs and whatnot break down but the game itself doesn�t work nearly as well in late 44 and 45. It just feels like everything is optimised for early game and 44 and 45 was added just an afterthought.

Simplification of course. But personally I think I prefer the early years of 42 and 43. Despite all the setbacks I suffered I had way more fun then compared to what I have now. I miss sitting down with a coffee/beer/whiskey watching the entire replay from start to finish without touching ESC. I would say that was probably the most enjoyable part of the game. Cheering for each downed Tojo or new ace gained. Each DD sunk.

I miss those days.

Maybe the HRs breaking down and the game engine breaking down are linked - maybe the engine "breaks down" (i.e., spits out undesirable/hard to swallow results) as a result of those very HRs!

The modeling in this game is pretty realistic.

Going back a few posts, the example of bombers going in low at 4k vs. a CAP up high. Discrepancies of 4k vs. 30k, and 4k vs. 21k, were given. It doesn't even need to be that much. Without radar present, the CAP can be at 10k and bombers at 4k will get through before the CAP can engage them. Gotta be really careful with CAP altitudes early on against a cheeky Allied player.

I posted in that AAR you can't read, just today, a night raid by 2Es at 100 feet which gave Japan a 2NM and zero minutes warning. Didn't hit nothin' but they had to change their shorts.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/1/2013 8:37:25 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2514

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:36:03 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

FWIW in my game with Apbarog we have a gentlemens agreement not to use silly altitude for planes. We're only upto June 42 so no corsairs but most air raids and planes fly between 6 and 15k with only a few raids at 20k from memory.

I'm not sure what a "silly" altitude is. The Corsair was one of the preeminent CAS airframes of the war. I have seen footage from the Korean War of one delivering napalm from less than 100 feet onto a rise.

And of course the P47 in the ETO was a monster. The true grandfather of the A-10 Warthog.

If AE truly modeled the Allies' advantages in CAS nobody would play Japan. The Strafe and Low Ground skill isn't even close to how it was.

If by "silly" you mean "not too high" that's a different issue. I skimmed Symon's thread on airplane data changes coming for DBB and I think those will be very popular.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 2515

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 8:58:01 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

The modeling in this game is pretty realistic.

I am not sure I agree with this, but I would agree the game abstractions certainly provide a set of realistic decisions for the players. However, I will go on record that most if not all in this forum disagree with my worldview on the air combat module

Indeed, by modeling I meant the game's abstractions. It gets much more in-depth with the aircraft stats and to a lesser extent the ship stats, but even the LCU-on-LCU action is pretty good. Within reasonable expectations, particularly for a game of this scope, the models work great. I just accept what flaws there are and play the game, because fixing any one of them would create at least one more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Lokasenna,

Ever considered doing an AAR of your game vs Bull?

Noooooo! He's kicking my betarkus. Has Darwin already, all the phone numbers of the local chicks . . .

Hush, it's still 1942. I'll get mine later.

I did hear that those NW Aus. women were really wild, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I skimmed Symon's thread on airplane data changes coming for DBB and I think those will be very popular.

Is that the "Aircraft" thread in the Scenario subforum? Is there a summary of the changes somewhere in there?

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2516

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 9:01:47 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Symon/JWE's aircraft thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3405381

_____________________________

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2517

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 9:08:38 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I did hear that those NW Aus. women were really wild, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I skimmed Symon's thread on airplane data changes coming for DBB and I think those will be very popular.

Is that the "Aircraft" thread in the Scenario subforum? Is there a summary of the changes somewhere in there?

I never made it to NE Oz, but the women in Perth nearly killed me. Every red-blooded American boy should go to Oz for a month or two. BEFORE getting married.

(The women riding the train across the Nulaboor for two days weren't bad either. Come to think of it, the train to Brisbane from Cairns was nice. The Gold Coast had some very friendly natives. And the nurses in King's Cross. The tour guide at the 'roo sanctuary. Hell, just go!)

It is the thread you name. It's not hard to skim. He's re-doing about 550 aircraft for data and tightening up things like actual altitudes when loaded versus data sheet when stripped. It's going to bring fighters and bombers together a lot more and make bombers a lot less bullet-proof. But read it yourself.

If it's done in time and you want to stop my betarkus kicking and start over with DBB, stacking limits, and aircraft stuff I could be talked into going through another December 1941.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2518

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 9:30:21 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
If it's done in time and you want to stop my betarkus kicking and start over with DBB, stacking limits, and aircraft stuff I could be talked into going through another December 1941.

Now that I've moved all of my thousands of pieces in the first few months you just want me to do it again! Besides, I like my current plan... I want to see it through without you knowing what I'm up to first. I'll have to check that thread out, though.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2519

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 10:03:12 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I think the engine "breaking down" is more about the numbers then anything. In 42-43 you have perhaps 50 fighters vs 50 fighters. In 45 you have 1000 fighters vs 1000 fighters. As I said my personal feeling is that the game just works and feels better and makes more sense when numbers are more manageable.

Having done an AAR I have to say I enjoy that actually more than playing the game.

Sorry to hear the game is at this point, a few thoughts.

WE, as AFB or JFB have to be careful in our support. Sometimes small rifts get blown out by over exuberent support by those with incomplete knowledge of the full facts. We never know the full story, but become experts. Happens on both sides.

Air Manouvre/Speed/Height numbers: While I know that a lot of effort has gone into getting test data to create the numbers, maybe the average Joe pilot on the edge of Malaria isnt capable of these numbers, in addition maintenance standards on god forsaken tropical islands affects performance. IRL, raids were run at much lower heights than we run them. This could explain why the USN Hellcats (really an average plane by the stats) were supreme, pilots looked after and kept at a peak of performance?

Japanese aircraft numbers: Its borked, but how can it be changed and still leave a level of choice? Joc talks of capping (not LRcapping

) pilot numbers. How about keeping engine numbers to a set level. Get rid of the different types of engine, just chrome. This should allow the JFB to choose his preferred mix of aircraft, and also whether he wants 1 x Emily or 4 x Fighters, cant make both. Maybe its a bit of both approaches to controlling numbers.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2520