Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hex 86,109 is not a base hex.

Not a good advertisement for your "tests" but consistent with the overall reliability of your approach.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred

In all posts showing an IJ strike on the Allied CVs the Allies are positioned at 80, 110. The IJN are apparently at 86, 109.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3555633

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Correct but where is the evidence that the strike originated from a base hex.

Alfred

In all posts showing an IJ strike on the Allied CVs the Allies are positioned at 80, 110. The IJN are apparently at 86, 109.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

For those who says strike wave will be reduced because carriers are in base hex:

All my escorts and bombers went out during multiple tests. I don't think the manual is accurate here unless there are other factors I don't know.

Please correct me.

Here is one example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Biak at 86,109

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A7M2 Sam x 598
N1K5-J George x 42
Ki-84r Frank x 26

Allied aircraft
F6F-5 Hellcat x 470
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 62
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 296
TBM-1C Avenger x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
A7M2 Sam: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-5 Hellcat: 27 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 18 destroyed, 8 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 65 destroyed, 54 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 2 destroyed by flak
TBM-1C Avenger: 5 destroyed, 11 damaged
TBM-1C Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Here is the full combat report, I'm not sure what you are looking for though.

Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 22000.

For example for the fact that your CAP patrol alt was about 10k above the incoming naval strike and at the same time had to engage LBA attack which arrived significantly higher. That explains a lot. Besides what has been mentioned already this is a major factor.

CR alone still does not tell everything, but this is enough to answer your initial question. Yes, in this situation your loss figures seem quite plausable.

and having 40 squadrons at 40 different, perfect altitudes wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome. I'm sorry that after all the years I have still to disagree, but you put too much real world fantasy into
it. Go and TEST it, please. 15000ft or 20000ft works just fine to engage these strikes, especially with the insane number of fighters. Like many other things one is "supposed" to do, there is not much truth in it.
I've put dozens of hours into it to confirm or deny these theories while there are enough ppl around not even making it to late years and all they do is playing around with 3-400 aircraft max.

There is only one truth again, the code can't handle these numbers, NO MATTER what you try to do. Those are nothing but myths. Go TEST it, just once. Then come back.

It actually WOULD have exulted in a different outcome. Altitude of CAP does matter, though it won't STOP these strikes, only reduce their effectiveness.

Late war Japanese strike planes are very fast, and if some of the CAP is taking almost an hour to get into position to intercept, then it's likely some will get through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

So in this situation how can I better defend myself?

The distance the CAP is set to will also matter. Is there any Allied CAP over the hex the fleet are in exclusively or are they all set to strike distance?

What is the TF composition for these CVE TFs? Any BBs, CLAAs, other heavy AA platforms there?

A base hex will certainly limit your CAP a LOT, and you still haven't bothered to mention your actual CAP percentage setting. You want help but don't seem to be willing to reveal much, so do you really want to figure it out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hex 86,109 is not a base hex.

Not a good advertisement for your "tests" but consistent with the overall reliability of your approach.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

yeah, one hour pre warning time 2000 fighters on Cap and you think you would do different having them at different altitudes. Have fun failing, not much more I can say...

the op had his fighters at 20000ft, the strikes were at 10000ft. Just FINE! He didn't have them at 1000ft or 40000ft and even then, IF YOU WOULD HAVE EVER PUT SOME WORK INTO TESTING IT, you would find out that even
that wouldn't make any NOTABLE difference. OMG anybody of you experts realised the ridicoulosly high numbers involved? Your woodoo won't help here! There is just one thing that would make ANY difference, and that
is WEATHER! Make the strike attacking these ships in Thunderstorms instead of Light cloud or clear and you will see a DIFFERENCE. Your woodoo settings won't make any difference, the numbers are just too insane.

If you guys, after all these years, are not getting over the fact that the code just can't handle these absurd numbers, then I pity you all. And no, this is no critics on the code, this is critics to all those
that still don't get it. It's not some magic fantasy settings that you guys pull out of thin air it's just the code that is not supposed to handle 1 million of soldiers fighting each other on an atoll nor 5000
aircraft colliding in the air over the whole IJN/USN/RN stacked into one hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

You tend to mix reality with game. I don't know what's your problem.

May I ask if you ever play a AE PBEM game to late war stage?

Just about everyone here trying to assist has played multile games to late stage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

quote:



Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

yeah, one hour pre warning time 2000 fighters on Cap and you think you would do different having them at different altitudes. Have fun failing, not much more I can say...

the op had his fighters at 20000ft, the strikes were at 10000ft. Just FINE! He didn't have them at 1000ft or 40000ft and even then, IF YOU WOULD HAVE EVER PUT SOME WORK INTO TESTING IT, you would find out that even
that wouldn't make any NOTABLE difference. OMG anybody of you experts realised the ridicoulosly high numbers involved? Your woodoo won't help here! There is just one thing that would make ANY difference, and that
is WEATHER! Make the strike attacking these ships in Thunderstorms instead of Light cloud or clear and you will see a DIFFERENCE. Your woodoo settings won't make any difference, the numbers are just too insane.

If you guys, after all these years, are not getting over the fact that the code just can't handle these absurd numbers, then I pity you all. And no, this is no critics on the code, this is critics to all those
that still don't get it. It's not some magic fantasy settings that you guys pull out of thin air it's just the code that is not supposed to handle 1 million of soldiers fighting each other on an atoll nor 5000
aircraft colliding in the air over the whole IJN/USN/RN stacked into one hex.

Can you please calm yourself, please! This is not personal. Don't' assume what I have or haven't done. YOUR ALL CAPS ARE RUDE!!! Pity? Really?
Your exuberance is leading you to exaggerate, just a bit.

In the OP the time to target is listed at 33 minutes, not an hour. 5k planes? Where?

Different CAP settings change results. It is possible. I have tested it, but not thoroughly enough to meet rigorous testing standards of 'experts' here (which I would never call myself, by the way). Look at my join date to the left. I'm not one of the 'guys' you're battling against. I'm just trying to learn more, not win an argument.

If CAP settings don't matter, why not fly them all at 6k, or at 30k?

I've been playing in the late game with big numbers, and actually in the beta it's not nearly as bad as it was pre-beta. Some strikes get through, but a whole lot do not, and LBA can't do squat no matter the numbers, so the code is actually handling some of these things better than you think. That is a testament to the designers and michaelm consistently giving it tweaks to make it better.

If all of us just did a few tests and decided changing settings, trying out new ideas, experimenting, simply wasn't important, then I'm sure there would be a lot of boring, low quality games played.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
The fact that the game handles many things that are beyond 'realistic' does not mean that it can handle everything that is beyond realistic. The fact that players do such things, even do them frequently, does not change that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time.

This gave me a visual of synchronized flight ops with 2 dozen carriers, sorta like movies in the 50’s. “Now we see all these carrier pivot cleanly on their sterns to course 170 true…of wait, the Franklin seems to have stumbled a bit. Oh that IS bad luck, I hope the Nassau can get out of the way in time! Oh, bad show, the Franklin seems to be back on course, but the Nassau seems to have vanished”

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Is that real?

For example, Bullwinkle58, has a AAR by then end of 42. Maybe he didn't post his 1945 AAR in the forum?

I'm not targeted anyone but it feels weird looking at someone talking about things they don't even know about.

Maybe I should just close the thread and end the turmoil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Guys, I chose to pull out of this thread a while ago. Why?

First there were loads of incomplete, vague, and sometimes contradicting statements (whether in the form of a question or not), absurd claims, and finally a statement roughly to the effect that 95% of all USN ships were in one hex. At about the time of that last statement JWE popped in and confirmed that even the combat posted in the initial post was beyond the design parameters.

While there are various true statements/observations being made in this thread, 95% of the USN in one hex is absurd and more than merely beyond any reasonable design. Any actual improvement in the code would not be to allow such a number of ships to operate their aircraft successfully in one hex, it would be to prevent that number of ships from operating successfully - or at all - in one hex.

The OP thinks his want is reasonable. It isn't, unless the game is changed to one that has far lesser roots in reality. All of the talk and argument about mechanics, which would be very valid in another context, is moot in this case because the situation is way out of scope.

BTW, we already sometimes push the envelope beyond reality in terms of stacking operating TFs within a hex. It's not about the area that how many ships can fit into, or even the area that how many TFs (which include spacing inside each TF!) can fit into, the TFs must have operating space between them too.

Roughly why I stopped caring about the OP's problem and have just been reading for amusement. Anybody who has ever been to sea, even in a cabin cruiser or ocean-going racing boat, knows how much sea room is needed to operate safely. Ships don't have brakes. The most contacts I ever tried to conn through at PD, with visual data, was seven. And that's in roughly a five-mile-diameter circle. They didn't know I was there, which changes things a bit, but keeping seven relative motion problems running in my head was taxing.

Ask anyone who has ever conned a carrier doing flight ops how they felt about having a second large ship within miles of them. Here the OP has dozens and dozens of carriers doing flight ops in a 40-mile hex. Plus at least (?) a thousand smaller combatants. Lunacy. Forget the air models. This is demolition derby time. Any request for a reality-check after that piece of info was disclosed is a waste of electrons IMO.

Let me start by saying I completely understand what you guys are saying in terms of reality. I'm surprised though that you guys take issue with this in game terms. How many games have we seen where the Allies pile 15+ CVs and 30+ CVEs in one hex in the endgame?

In my game with JockMeister I don't know exact numbers, but I do know that I hit 20+ CVEs in one turn, with CRs that didn't look so different than the OP here, yet no one brought up these thoughts in my AAR. Maybe something was in that of my opponent?

I don't even think it's necessarily the best move in game, but it is possible to do in game, so many very experienced players have and will continue to do it. The OP is not alone here.