RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

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: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

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: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/22/2016 8:26:50 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I would love to see the second test redone with the P47s sweeping at 15,000 feet

We'll get there! I'l try to exhaust the variations. This is by no means skewed to help one side or another, and the fact that I've picked a very good Japanese plane is really to at least at first make sure that the defender does have a chance to do some damage against the P-47. After this series I'll mix up airframes too.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 31

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/22/2016 8:31:52 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Erik, regarding sweeps and radar. I tested this a while back.

Have a squadron sweep a base. Note the TTT. Then switch them to AF attack and note the TTT. Results used to be very...interesting a while back. Don�t know if its fixed now.

Thanks Jocke. I'll test that next just to see radar use. I suspect that radar is working. Interestingly I'm starting to wonder though if the short TTT is actually a slight advantage for the defending CAP if placed low, since the groups intercept en masse rather than being hit piecemiel. We'll see as we go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

IIRC Radars work just for the target hex. However longer detection range means more "rolls" for each radar device - so a radar could have 1 roll with range of 20 (it is assumed it is in centre of the hex), 2 rolls with range 60, 3 rolls with range 100, etc.. or something in that way...

Succesfull radar detection is critical in getting your own planes into the air - and possibly above the attackers regardless of CAP setting altitude ("Group altitude set 20000, climbing to 17000 to 31000" message).

Thanks Barb.

Yep, the time to intercept message are very important I'm feeling but with low CAP maybe not in the way we're used to thinking about. As above, I wonder after seeing the first sweep getting hit hard by the layered low CAP if having them all low, not yet able to climb, meant they won the number game by so much they overwhelmed even the faster diving P-47s. I'll try to isolate this to work on my suspicians.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 32

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/22/2016 6:51:05 PM

obvert

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

Ok. One more to help round out the high CAP option.

This one has layered CAP at 31k, 28k and 26k. The sweeps again are coming at 42k.

I noticed more fluctuation of results here, with some very good showings by the Franks and other runs where they're crushed at over 3:1. Odd. Trying to make correlations even in the miniscule differences i TTT, but so far nothing seems to fit. Let me know if you see anything.

(Forgot to make Time to target on center column here)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/22/2016 6:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 33

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/22/2016 8:27:28 PM

Lokasenna

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

Even though you're doing 10 runs, that's still a pretty small n.

I have a hypothesis for variable results in layered CAP. There is probably some randomness in which unit gets dived on by the strato sweepers. I would guess that in the instances where the Franks achieved a positive ratio, more P-47s dove on the lowest band of CAP and were in turn dived on by higher Franks. When the Franks lost outright, it may have been because the P-47s dove on the highest first and then continued to dive before the Franks could climb high enough to dive.

It is more intense work in the editor to sort this out, but what I would do to sort out which unit was getting dived on is create some identical aircraft profiles that just happen to have different names. Like Ki-84r LOW, Ki-84r MIDDLEONE, Ki-84r MIDDLETWO, Ki-84r HIGH. You could then see messages like "P-47D25 diving on Ki-84r LOW" and know which unit is getting attacked.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 34

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/22/2016 11:16:24 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Even though you're doing 10 runs, that's still a pretty small n.

I have a hypothesis for variable results in layered CAP. There is probably some randomness in which unit gets dived on by the strato sweepers. I would guess that in the instances where the Franks achieved a positive ratio, more P-47s dove on the lowest band of CAP and were in turn dived on by higher Franks. When the Franks lost outright, it may have been because the P-47s dove on the highest first and then continued to dive before the Franks could climb high enough to dive.

It is more intense work in the editor to sort this out, but what I would do to sort out which unit was getting dived on is create some identical aircraft profiles that just happen to have different names. Like Ki-84r LOW, Ki-84r MIDDLEONE, Ki-84r MIDDLETWO, Ki-84r HIGH. You could then see messages like "P-47D25 diving on Ki-84r LOW" and know which unit is getting attacked.

I agree it's a small sample to start. I'm really feeling out what needs more testing and hoping to get just this kind of feedback to make the tests do more, or work to certain goals.

It still surprises me that a low CAP setup would be more successful than the other ranges tried so far. I know this is a bare bones test too, and I do want some color in it from differing airframes, pilot experience, and other stuff that wold fit game play experiences better.

Afte going through a full cycle with these I'll try one for another 10 runs and see if the results are close to the same percentage lost. If they ar then maybe 10 is enough to get a good idea of each situation. If not then maybe I'll have to make the set larger for later tests.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 35

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 1:22:52 AM

sfatula

Posts: 100
Joined: 9/8/2015
From: Calera, OK
Status: offline

The diving on the lowest group would certainly make sense to give much better results potentially, assuming it's limited to diving on a single group. That's a long dive too. The highest defending group could be sitting there moving straight ahead level and watch the planes just dive by and blast em.

Need a much bigger sample though, but this is fascinating indeed.

< Message edited by sfatula -- 3/23/2016 1:23:43 AM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 36

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 4:37:28 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

Somewhere, The Elf (the air developer) is smiling at this attempt to divine his algorithms.

I personally would like to see the number of radars as a variable, say zero, one, three and six. There were some counterintuitive results in an AAR that made it seem like more radars may have made things worse. Would be good to put that to rest.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to sfatula)

Post #: 37

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 5:16:59 AM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So here is another that I did late last night and accidently posted in John III's AAR. Whoops! Anyway, it's here now.

This is one to show the effects of an all high CAP at 31k. Quite a big difference! Should also point out that this is not a layered CAP, which based on earlier results seems more effective. I'll test a high layered CAP next for comparison.

But these results might be a function of the altitude. No Japanese fighters performed well at that sort of height. Note how much the Frank degrades in maneuverability between 10,000k and 31,000k, whereas the P47 hardly degrades at all. So at 10,000 feet you have a much slower fighter with better maneuverability taking on a faster fighter with poor rating. However at 31,000 feet you have a slower fighter with poor maneuverability taking on a faster fighter that actually maneuvers fairly well at that height. All things considered speed is the strongest asset a fighter has but when you are slower and also lose maneuverability to boot, the results make sense.

So low CAP might be better for a Japanese aircraft, but then not ideal for any late war American. Worth testing.

And when you set up your test map you can turn off advanced weather effects and every day will be partially cloudy for consistency.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 3/23/2016 5:22:04 AM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 38

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 8:26:44 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So here is another that I did late last night and accidently posted in John III's AAR. Whoops! Anyway, it's here now.

This is one to show the effects of an all high CAP at 31k. Quite a big difference! Should also point out that this is not a layered CAP, which based on earlier results seems more effective. I'll test a high layered CAP next for comparison.

But these results might be a function of the altitude. No Japanese fighters performed well at that sort of height. Note how much the Frank degrades in maneuverability between 10,000k and 31,000k, whereas the P47 hardly degrades at all. So at 10,000 feet you have a much slower fighter with better maneuverability taking on a faster fighter with poor rating. However at 31,000 feet you have a slower fighter with poor maneuverability taking on a faster fighter that actually maneuvers fairly well at that height. All things considered speed is the strongest asset a fighter has but when you are slower and also lose maneuverability to boot, the results make sense.

So low CAP might be better for a Japanese aircraft, but then not ideal for any late war American. Worth testing.

And when you set up your test map you can turn off advanced weather effects and every day will be partially cloudy for consistency.

I did switch off advanced weather halfway through the first set, and started to get fewer thunderstorms. I'm also walking the test ahead each turn to get a different weather, hopefully.

The interest for me in the high results is the difference between high layered and high flat. The airframes may not be as good high, but they perform much better layered from 31k than flat, and by the numbers they are still more maneuverable than the P-47D2 up there. The results are almost as good though as when set to 10k, 10k, and 7k.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 39

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 11:27:34 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Moral of story (so to speak):

Counter "stratosphere" sweeps with layered CAP at altitudes where your planes have good maneuverability, it works.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 40

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 12:41:43 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Moral of story (so to speak):

Counter "stratosphere" sweeps with layered CAP at altitudes where your planes have good maneuverability, it works.

Maybe.

That I feel is too quickly decided and there is a lot more to learn about why/how results are different at different altitudes.

It definitely seems layering is key. It so far appears that lower layering is better. I have yet to try the 20k range, but lets remember that for the Ki-84r the maneuver is the same (27) from <10k to 31k, another reason I chose this airframe to begin tests. See below.

So if we're just talking about layered CAP at best maneuver, then test 3 with 31k, 28k, 26k should work out to give similar results to 9k, 7k, 5k. Yet it is very different!

One test I'll do soon is to modify this airframe in the editor to have climb or about 3,200, or close to the George/Jack/Tojo territory. I think the climb could be a big factor.

Other factors; Time to Target, speed differential, radar vs no radar, percentage CAP setting, durability, armor, pilots EXP, pilot air skill, pilot def skill.

Anything else?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/23/2016 12:56:53 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 41

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 4:00:38 PM

tiemanjw

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

Random guessing here... but with a time to alert in the 10 or so minutes range, is it possible that the 30ish k altitude ones are climbing to meet the sweepers at 42k (or above their max maneuver), but the 10ish k ones don't have the time (and thus meet while still in max maneuver territory)?

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 42

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 6:18:26 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

Random guessing here... but with a time to alert in the 10 or so minutes range, is it possible that the 30ish k altitude ones are climbing to meet the sweepers at 42k (or above their max maneuver), but the 10ish k ones don't have the time (and thus meet while still in max maneuver territory)?

Here is a CR from one of the high layered CAP tests.

The initial sweep seems to be met at the set altitudes (no indication of scrambling fighters between --- and ---)

The two later intercepts both show the groups attempting to scramble to above the 31k band. I guess there is no sure fire method of knowing whether they make it.

I can do several things to isolate elements on this test though. (Lokasenna gave a great suggestion to isolate group's planes to see which band ends up fighting, and wining or losing, but if there are any more suggestions, keep em comin!)

1. I could change the Ki-84r to maneuver 27 at all bands to see if this changes the results.

2. I could change the Ki-84 to restrict high altitude to below 31k, or even to 20k, or to 10k, and see if those make a difference in outcomes.

3. I could change climb rates to 3,200, or even higher, to see if more planes make it up there and how that affects results.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 18, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84r Frank x 69

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84r Frank: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 5 destroyed

CAP engaged:
10th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
100th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 43 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84r Frank x 48

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84r Frank: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D2 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

CAP engaged:
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
15 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 27000 and 31498.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
100th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28000 , scrambling fighters between 27000 and 31498.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
10th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 51 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 68 NM, estimated altitude 46,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84r Frank x 21

Allied aircraft
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84r Frank: 2 destroyed

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet

CAP engaged:
1000th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000 , scrambling fighters between 27000 and 34450.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
100th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28000 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 32996.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
10th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000 , scrambling fighters between 27000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/23/2016 6:21:06 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 43

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 6:57:16 PM

Lokasenna

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

You should also pay attention to the time for all group planes to reach interception. That is going to affect the results.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 44

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 7:25:44 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You should also pay attention to the time for all group planes to reach interception. That is going to affect the results.

There are times to intercept for ALL planes, and I've tried so far to look for patterns, but that info doesn't seem to correlate strongly with changes in losses over the run of tests. I'll keep looking of course, and I do think the time to intercept is important, but maybe not the note on the time for all planes to intercept. We might have to get at it another way.

What if I put climb at 0 and CAP% to 100? Would planes stay on their band and not leave, or would they not fly at all?

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/23/2016 7:27:12 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 45

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 7:40:30 PM

tiemanjw

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You should also pay attention to the time for all group planes to reach interception. That is going to affect the results.

There are times to intercept for ALL planes, and I've tried so far to look for patterns, but that info doesn't seem to correlate strongly with changes in losses over the run of tests. I'll keep looking of course, and I do think the time to intercept is important, but maybe not the note on the time for all planes to intercept. We might have to get at it another way.

What if I put climb at 0 and CAP% to 100? Would planes stay on their band and not leave, or would they not fly at all?

I honestly don't know... but from what we are told, 1/3 of the CAP is up. I would guess we would see 1/3 the A/C with no more getting involved. It would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would mean anything.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 46

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 7:51:48 PM

obvert

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

For this version I kept the CAP setting layered high but changed the Ki-84r to 27 maneuver at 31k+ to see if planes climbing to the next maneuver band (which was 21) was an issue.

Apparently this wasn't a huge factor, although it does have some affect over the ten tests. The number are slightly better to the high layered CAP with stock Ki-84r, but not anywhere near the success of the low CAP layered 9k, 7k, 5k.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/24/2016 10:18:27 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 47

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 7:52:20 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You should also pay attention to the time for all group planes to reach interception. That is going to affect the results.

There are times to intercept for ALL planes, and I've tried so far to look for patterns, but that info doesn't seem to correlate strongly with changes in losses over the run of tests. I'll keep looking of course, and I do think the time to intercept is important, but maybe not the note on the time for all planes to intercept. We might have to get at it another way.

What if I put climb at 0 and CAP% to 100? Would planes stay on their band and not leave, or would they not fly at all?

I honestly don't know... but from what we are told, 1/3 of the CAP is up. I would guess we would see 1/3 the A/C with no more getting involved. It would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would mean anything.

We are told this, but is it actually true/does it matter? The lines from obvert's posted combat report would seem to bear it out for the initial combat only (21 planes not yet engaged, 48 on standby for a total of 69 out of 135 planes, which is pretty much 50% of the total group size). Note that after the first sweep, no planes are on standby and all are up in the air ("not yet engaged" and "being recalled").

If you pays attention to what the combat report tells you, you can get a lot of information to make decisions without the need to test what the report is already telling you.

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 48

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 8:18:35 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You should also pay attention to the time for all group planes to reach interception. That is going to affect the results.

There are times to intercept for ALL planes, and I've tried so far to look for patterns, but that info doesn't seem to correlate strongly with changes in losses over the run of tests. I'll keep looking of course, and I do think the time to intercept is important, but maybe not the note on the time for all planes to intercept. We might have to get at it another way.

What if I put climb at 0 and CAP% to 100? Would planes stay on their band and not leave, or would they not fly at all?

I honestly don't know... but from what we are told, 1/3 of the CAP is up. I would guess we would see 1/3 the A/C with no more getting involved. It would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would mean anything.

We are told this, but is it actually true/does it matter? The lines from obvert's posted combat report would seem to bear it out for the initial combat only (21 planes not yet engaged, 48 on standby for a total of 69 out of 135 planes, which is pretty much 50% of the total group size). Note that after the first sweep, no planes are on standby and all are up in the air ("not yet engaged" and "being recalled").

If you pays attention to what the combat report tells you, you can get a lot of information to make decisions without the need to test what the report is already telling you.

It's always good to try and confirm things, no? There are some mysteries about what altitude planes are at between these ranges that the CR does not tell us, and it doesn't say whether all of those planes scrambling, not yet engaged or being recalled actually made it into combat or not.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 49

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 10:43:37 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You should also pay attention to the time for all group planes to reach interception. That is going to affect the results.

There are times to intercept for ALL planes, and I've tried so far to look for patterns, but that info doesn't seem to correlate strongly with changes in losses over the run of tests. I'll keep looking of course, and I do think the time to intercept is important, but maybe not the note on the time for all planes to intercept. We might have to get at it another way.

What if I put climb at 0 and CAP% to 100? Would planes stay on their band and not leave, or would they not fly at all?

I honestly don't know... but from what we are told, 1/3 of the CAP is up. I would guess we would see 1/3 the A/C with no more getting involved. It would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would mean anything.

Definitely not the case. Without having to dig up other reports, just scroll up to obvert's posted report. The very first report does show that only 1/3 of the CAP is in the air initially, but for the subsequent battles all of the planes up to the set amount (which he put at 50%) are up in the air.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

It's always good to try and confirm things, no? There are some mysteries about what altitude planes are at between these ranges that the CR does not tell us, and it doesn't say whether all of those planes scrambling, not yet engaged or being recalled actually made it into combat or not.

I don't mean to suggest that there isn't value in getting data, just that there's no point in collecting data that's already shown in some way in the combat report.

We can't and will never know what altitude the planes are actually fighting at because the game in no way tells us.

If you pay careful attention (and I mean CAREFUL ATTENTION) to the combat animation, you can tell how many planes actually made it into the combat. The summary numbers shown on the main screen (in the black box that says something like "CAP defending | 123x F6F-3 Hellcat | 24x FM-2 Wildcat" etc.) are always going to be the same as the summary numbers shown in the combat report (your Ki-84r Frank x69 line, for example). But if you run the animation slowly enough, you can count how many planes actually take part in the fight. There will be the initial number (say, 14) and then a message will go by saying "14x Ki-84r Frank join combat" or something similar, and you'll see ones for disengagement as well ("spins away on fire", "heads for cloud cover", "dives for the deck", etc.). Count all those up, both the additions and subtractions, and you'll know how many planes participated in the fight. Tedious, but you can do it.

What should be done, at least if I were doing the test (and I'm too lazy/busy to do so; you can do yours however you like but I'm still going to provide my $0.02), is a look at the results and factor in:
1) Unit settings
2) Information from the CR (planes actually in on CAP, scramble altitudes, time to target, time to intercept, etc.)
3) Final numbers

Run that for a sufficient number of times and look at trends. By sufficient number of times, I'm talking about at least 50 here. 100 would be better. Remember that each successive iteration "costs" you less in terms of time/effort because you're simply doing another run of the same setup.

Also remember that if you are running this in a game save file where one of the sides is set as the computer, you can run the same game date over and over without actually changing any of the orders and get different results in the combat replay - it is not identical like it would be in PBEM.

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 50

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/23/2016 11:26:46 PM

obvert

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

Thanks. I run it all head to head to have access to both sides all of the time. No toher way to count numbers precisely. Each run all I have to do is put another extra group anywhere on 10% CAP and that is enough of a change that the entire day is different, even up to the weather.

I've now got ten saves of pre-combat though too on different dates so can choose to make sure I get a random sampling of weather and it goes quickly.

1. Unit settings

This is what I'm working with primarily. I think a lot is there to be learned, and already I'm getting some great chunks of data.

2. CR info

Very hard to use as it's complex but not precise. Some lines like time to target I can easily track, but time to intercept are both very hard to log for each combat (multiple pieces of the combat, actually), and correlate with losses from those pieces (not shown anywhere and would have to be counted in replay animation). So far I don't see the need to do that, but if someone, or me possibly, finds an actual correlation in the data with time to intercept and results, I could try it later on after getting more simple tests out of the way.

3. Final numbers

I think you mean losses for each test? Not sure.

I'm not sure running the tests 100 times would change results much. I will test the test soon by doing ten more of one interesting setup, probably layered low CAP, to see if it's within a few losses one way or another to the first one. If not then I need to think about doing larger sets. If it's +/- 5 over the ten runs, why bother?

I'm more interested to getting into some actual game relevant situations soon, using multiple airframes and playing with settings after getting far enough to develop a hypothesis. See if I can predict outcomes.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/23/2016 11:29:36 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 51

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 12:37:09 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

1. Unit settings

This is what I'm working with primarily. I think a lot is there to be learned, and already I'm getting some great chunks of data.

I agree, and think most everyone has is a slight understanding of the unit settings. The most important question you need to answer is what are defending against?

A one time naval strike aimed at a refinery/oil?

Wave after wave of 4e Bombers?

Sweeps?

2E bombers?

Combinations of the above?

Night Bombing?

Protecting ships?

Protecting carriers?

SR relationship to percentage on CAP?

AV support relationship to percentage on CAP?

Effects of range with your defensive goal?

etc, etc.

Bless you Obvert, the mind simply reels at all the possible permutations.

Instead of comparing the Frank r to the Jugs, I think you should use the commonly available mid 43 IJA planes to come up with a formula for countering early Jugs sweeps...just my thoughts. Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/24/2016 12:39:43 AM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 52

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 1:46:13 AM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.

There's only one real option here, so it's an easy answer:

Nicks in tandem with something else.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 53

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 2:26:13 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.

There's only one real option here, so it's an easy answer:

Nicks in tandem with something else.

That is certainly conventional wisdom, however I have used Oscars & Zeroes and done very well against them. However,it was with an altitude HR and PDU off.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 54

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 8:25:56 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

1. Unit settings

This is what I'm working with primarily. I think a lot is there to be learned, and already I'm getting some great chunks of data.

I agree, and think most everyone has is a slight understanding of the unit settings. The most important question you need to answer is what are defending against?

A one time naval strike aimed at a refinery/oil?

Wave after wave of 4e Bombers?

Sweeps?

2E bombers?

Combinations of the above?

Night Bombing?

Protecting ships?

Protecting carriers?

SR relationship to percentage on CAP?

AV support relationship to percentage on CAP?

Effects of range with your defensive goal?

etc, etc.

Bless you Obvert, the mind simply reels at all the possible permutations.

Instead of comparing the Frank r to the Jugs, I think you should use the commonly available mid 43 IJA planes to come up with a formula for countering early Jugs sweeps...just my thoughts. Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.

I will definitely get to some of these other situations, but those could be interpreted form results based on how certain settings perform and what the player predicts from their opponent.

I'll definitely get to other airframes, but wanted something with real teeth first, and the benefit of the same maneuver rating right up to 31k.

This i not a test for Japanese players though, and soon I'll be trying to put low CAP settings into effect with early war Allied defenders to see if the tactic works there too. Similar situation, the Buffalo vs the A6M2.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 55

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 8:27:03 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.

There's only one real option here, so it's an easy answer:

Nicks in tandem with something else.

Here I'm more interested in how to improve the P-38 sweeps in 43-44.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 56

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 1:27:28 PM

obvert

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

Ok. Another set from a mid altitude CAP layered with 20k, 18k, 16k. This is to test whether the layering works better in the middle altitudes than it does up high at 31k, and if it's as good here as it is low <10k.

Results were among the worst for Ki-84 CAP losses while losses of P-47s remained about the same as in the high CAP test.

I also added in a column for number of planes intercepting as shown when sweeps commence (the black box text that flashes up in the replay).

With 50% CAP set and 135 airframes available, the CAP was consistent at 69 airframes intercepting according to this message. This is ~51% of available airframes on CAP, apparently or almost exactly what was set by percentage.

Interestingly, in every CR the CAP is already attempting to climb with the first sweep, which is different than what happens in a low layered CAP where the first sweep includes no "scrambling to ..." messages.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/24/2016 1:28:48 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 57

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 1:38:19 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I think Ki-84b Frank is at disadvantage against P-47 as it is equppied with two MGs and two cannons. Aren't cannons, with their slow rate of fire, only good against bombers? I would try a test with P-47 sweeping against the last Tojo which is armed with 4 MGs. Both aircraft arrive in 3/44.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 58

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 2:39:33 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This i not a test for Japanese players though, and soon I'll be trying to put low CAP settings into effect with early war Allied defenders to see if the tactic works there too. Similar situation, the Buffalo vs the A6M2.

Excellent!

However, here you will find the pilot skill & experience delta really puts the Buffalo behind.

However, get some decent pilots in them and you will be very surprised with the results.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 59

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 3/24/2016 2:42:31 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Or even a 42 tactic for countering Lightning sweeps.

There's only one real option here, so it's an easy answer:

Nicks in tandem with something else.

Here I'm more interested in how to improve the P-38 sweeps in 43-44.

My best use for Lightning sweeps, albeit in 1945, was to perform LRCAP over the Thunderbolt/Mustang sweeps.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

0.875

Slitherine

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1