Why strafing is so useless ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Why strafing is so useless ?

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 >> Why strafing is so useless ?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/4/2014 10:42:06 PM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

Hi,
I'm not complaining just asking if anybody know why strafing is so useless (or totally under historical efficiency).
I understood quickly that strafing was useless and just a way to lose plane but I still don't know why devs (or perhaps bug ?) make the strafing totally unprofitable.

Just some numbers ,

130, it's the number of planes destroyed in Pearl Harbor (according to 8 december scen), the true number is something like 180 but some squadron aren't full at the begining so.

30, it's usually what I got from the first turn as Jap (in PH).

Even considering that dive bomber worked well, the A6M2s are suppose to be really effective as historically. There are not a lot of flaks too so nothing is suppose to reduce their efficiency. But the result is really disapointing.

Flak is anormaly effective too, even with 16 bofors in a hex, you lost half of your squadron in strafing attack. A good strafing attack is suppose to avoid flak, flying a low alt, radar or spotter don't see the attack coming so flak don't shot or don't get efficient result.

In my opinion, even if you don't destroy a lot of planes on the ground, you at least don't lose a lot of planes too.
It mean that fighter become useless in case of air superiority or if ennemy fighters stay on the ground waiting for some bombers to attack.

I've not made a lot of test but it's the same for ground attack except it's effective on disruption.

ps : I don't play AE early so I don't know if peoples complain about it or something else. Although I tried to search but found nothing.

Post #: 1

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/4/2014 11:14:02 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Pearl Harbor (07 Dec 41) is probably not the best yardstick to measure game strafing versus real life strafing results. The results there were an abnormality due to the disposition of US aircraft.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to Gaspote)

Post #: 2

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/4/2014 11:50:50 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

In a different take, the Pacific is not the ETO where (if you're the allied player) you have Thunderbolts. It's a bad idea (almost always) to waste those well trained fighter pilots to some clown standing on land with a submachine gun. If you have a squadron with the appropriate ground attack aircraft, by all means train some pilots to do that.

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 3

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 12:00:25 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

The games code does a poor job of representing strafing attacks.

You can send P39's and whatnot after troops, but the impact is minimal and the losses to flak makes it a waste of aircraft.

Pretty much the only time I've used strafing attacks have been against PT boats or Chinese troops in the open.

The only worthwhile exceptions might be the US Marauders armed with excess machine guns and cannons, and perhaps some Japanese two-engine fighters.

(in reply to Gaspote)

Post #: 4

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 12:26:11 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

In AE you have to train pilots in different roles, and one of them is straffing. Now I know the early Japanese pilots have this capability, but these naval fighter jockeys are just too valuable to waste on a ground pounder. I believe you need to be at 100' too in order to get them to straff at all. When I train my fighter pilots the only reason I train in straffing at all is because it seems to bring up the defensive role as well. Still not sure if this is due to training in the secondary role or just the longer length of the training. As far as to the effectiveness of the straffing attack I won't be able to tell until I start playing as the allies. They have higher pilot numbers so I'll check it out when I get to them. Anyway my real point is that as the Japanese player I doubt I would waste any pilots performing straffing.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 5

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 12:48:04 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

1. There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

2. The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

3. Very few airframes are classified as FB.

4. AB do suppress flak and can therefore emulate the straffing role.

5. Pointless attempting to straff if pilots lack that skill.

6. Benefits of radial v inline engine not picked up in the abstraction.

Alfred

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 6

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 1:04:14 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred�

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 7

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 1:48:36 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

2.� The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

3.� Very few airframes are classified as FB.

4.� AB do suppress flak and can therefore emulate the straffing role.

5.� Pointless attempting to straff if pilots lack that skill.

6.� Benefits of radial v inline engine not picked up in the abstraction.

Alfred�

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

Point number one raises the question : Is there a correlation between radar and CAP effectiveness? I'm hoping the answer is yes.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 8

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 1:50:54 AM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred�

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

No, not flak.

There is really no reason to strafe or to train in it. I tested it a bit some years back and found that it was the bomb that matters.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 9

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 1:56:20 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred�

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

Only commenting on game treatment as OP wanted to know why game results are as they are.

Alfred

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 10

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 1:59:29 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

2.� The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

3.� Very few airframes are classified as FB.

4.� AB do suppress flak and can therefore emulate the straffing role.

5.� Pointless attempting to straff if pilots lack that skill.

6.� Benefits of radial v inline engine not picked up in the abstraction.

Alfred�

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

Point number one raises the question : Is there a correlation between radar and CAP effectiveness? I'm hoping the answer is yes.

I'll take your point on spelling on advisement.

As to CAP effectiveness, in that instance, yes there is a correlation between the presence, and type, of radar and CAP effectiveness.

Alfred

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 11

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 2:00:22 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

It takes a Gorn.

Thanks for the correction. I got into a technical field because I can't spell, and there's no spell checker here. Also I refuse to look up every other word up in the dictionary.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 2:12:32 AM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

It looks sexier with two F s.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 13

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 2:32:57 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

It looks sexier with two F s.

More teutonic, with perhaps some lederhosen?

Alfred

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 14

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 2:42:29 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

These days, with the demise of the printed word looming, dictionaries which were inadequate to begin with may simply cease to exist. We will have to fall back on the OED. I'd like to credit the history of most American dictionaries in their attention to etymology. It is rather difficult to find dictionaries of other than English but European languages that even include any etymologies at all. I find this appalling. If you don't know the etymology of a word, you really don't understand the meaning of the word, either currently or in the past. English is truly a great language, in my view the greatest of all in part because it blends Greek and Latin and German and Celtic and Arabic and every other language on Earth. Seriously, the people we call great authors today will seem like silly fools because we no longer understand the meaning of words. I raise my glass of Pinot Grigio to words!

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 15

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 3:04:16 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

The Urban Dictionary definition of "straff" uses words I don't, and which would not be consistent with forum rules in any case. Despite that, the definition could be considered consistent with Alfred's usage

, especially

quote:

The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

I'm all for "soft skin", but using terms like "targets" seems a little ungentlemanly.

< Message edited by erstad -- 2/5/2014 4:04:49 AM >

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 16

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 5:56:58 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred�

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

No, not flak.

There is really no reason to strafe or to train in it. I tested it a bit some years back and found that it was the bomb that matters.

Well, training strafing itself for strafing might not be so useful, but training sweep at 100ft is the quickest method to improve defensive skill in fighter pilots.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/5/2014 6:57:24 AM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 17

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 8:56:39 AM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Vital for training in defensive skill.

Would strafing still have an effect on the supply of the unit being strafed?

_____________________________

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 18

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 9:59:02 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

And on top of that - you can effectively strafe only small amount of troops - because in existing code every single squad in a 40-mile hex will shoot (albeit not very effectively) at your strafing planes. And with several thousands of squads you will eventually get way too many damaged planes ...

That said, I would not try it with Japanese planes (without armor and low durability), but only with allies, with planes as P-39s or attack bombers, and against small enemy garrisons - at best case already without supplies

In game terms: it is generally not very advisable to fly at 100ft against enemy CAP, flak and fully supplied troops ...

_____________________________

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 19

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 10:12:33 AM

CT Grognard

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

strafe (v.), 1915, "punish, attack, bomb heavily", picked up by British soldiers from German strafen "to punish", in slogan Gott strafe England "May God punish England," current in Germany c. 1914-16 at the start of the Great War. The word was used for many kinds of attacks at first; the meaning of "shoot up ground positions from low-flying aircraft" emerged as the main sense in 1942.

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 20

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 1:12:44 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

I thought so.

All the girls say a gorn just can't handle two f's.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 21

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 4:27:21 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Strafing with armor=0 planes is a costly mistake

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 22

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 4:30:17 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred�

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

No, not flak.

There is really no reason to strafe or to train in it. I tested it a bit some years back and found that it was the bomb that matters.

Well, training strafing itself for strafing might not be so useful, but training sweep at 100ft is the quickest method to improve defensive skill in fighter pilots.

Yes, I sometimes do this if I have the luxury.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 23

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 4:32:59 PM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ?

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 24

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 4:34:18 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.� There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred�

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

Only commenting on game treatment as OP wanted to know why game results are as they are.

Alfred

Hmm, upon rereading, I may have misunderstood the question and what was meant was did I have a source for how AE treats it.

That being so, I am somewhat surprised at the inference that I made up the statement out of thin air. I would have thought that forumites could rely upon my accuracy. It is always preferable to have a relevant dev posting answers but in their absence, there are a few regulars who, whilst not devs themselves, can usually be relied upon to be accurate.

1. There is no mention in the manual of radar influencing ground AA fire against aircraft.

2. The manual makes two references of where radar can influence combat operations:

(a) s.7.4.1.1 which deals exclusively with CAP, and
(b) s.10.3 which deals exclusively with naval surface combat and the attempt to increase individual ship detection levels

3. I have never found any dev stating that radar influences ground AA fire against aircraft.

4. Of the threads where devs do talk about radar, this one is the most relevant.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2664947&mpage=1&key=radar�

Look for JWE's post. Pretty clear from his post that radar can impact on CAP and naval combat. Nothing else is covered. This is quite consistent with the manual.

5. On 28 September 2009, another key dev, TheElf stated the following:

"Radar detects Airplanes. The longer the range the sooner it does so. The higher the effect the more accurate the data and the better your CAP will perform. There really isn't much more to it."

Again quite consistent with the manual.

6. Hexes containing ground units with no radar but equipped with the Mark I eyeball and some AA devices do fire at incoming enemy bombers.

7. Hexes containing ground units with radar and equipped with some AA devices do not fire at enemy fighters sweeping.

Alfred

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 25

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 4:39:31 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ?

Did you read my post #6.

If so, please explain how, under those circumstances, what you want could be achieved. The conditions just do not exist. There are many things in the game which are, by necessity abstracted/simplified, in order to produce a commercial product which would be playable to more than 17 people on the planet.

Alfred

(in reply to Gaspote)

Post #: 26

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 5:53:10 PM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ?

Did you read my post #6.

If so, please explain how, under those circumstances, what you want could be achieved. The conditions just do not exist. There are many things in the game which are, by necessity abstracted/simplified, in order to produce a commercial product which would be playable to more than 17 people on the planet.

Alfred

I understand that reason is game balance.

But I don't think improving strafing should ruin game balance.

I just think strafing could be improve in order to change a bit gameplay, even without increasing the result, just reducing the effect of flak on strafing airplanes could be great. In order to give a role to fighter in case of air superiority and for suppressing flak during bombing (it already the case but you just avoid the lose of 4 bombers for the price of 15 fighters

).

IMO not having strafing attack is like not having sweep. It's deleting one of the three main missions of fighters. I really understand that in real life it's tricky but in game,it's not tricky, it's useless.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 27

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 6:08:48 PM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

Geoff....did you mean OCD in the 2nd line of your above note??!!

(in reply to Gaspote)

Post #: 28

RE: Why strafing is so useless ? - 2/5/2014 8:27:07 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hmm, upon rereading, I may have misunderstood the question and what was meant was did I have a source for how AE treats it.

That being so, I am somewhat surprised at the inference that I made up the statement out of thin air. I would have thought that forumites could rely upon my accuracy. It is always preferable to have a relevant dev posting answers but in their absence, there are a few regulars who, whilst not devs themselves, can usually be relied upon to be accurate.

Alfred

Hey I make stuff up all the time, whether it's out of thin air or thick. I can even do it in a complete vacuum. No snide remarks about what's betwixt my ears.