I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model

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 >> The War Room >> I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/10/2018 7:47:16 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

So I was playing Guadalcanal against Japanese AI on Hard in the latest beta, and saw an unusual combat report. Being me I wanted to test what gives - by reloading a game, resetting RNG by some TF movement and observing. And the unusualness repeated in all the reloads without exception. I would very much like to replicate this when I play Japan, especially since this is an 8 hex strike

But I can't understand how to make this happen!

Allies have overwhelming numerical superiority, enough time to intercept due to multiple radars, layered 10-20k CAP at zero range, 80+ xp pilots in excellent condition. As close to the ideal as it can get. Yet combat animation with 90-100 Wildcats present at all times shows only fighter-on-fighter passes and then end. All Kates go through and make torpedo runs without being engaged by the CAP.

And this is not a fluke of luck, it repeats on reloads, with slight variations of course because RNG is reset. But the main pattern of Kates going through CAP unmolested is always there. Hmm?

quote:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 115,138

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 113 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 49 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
B5N1 Kate x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 121

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Canberra, Torpedo hits 1
CA Australia
CL Hobart, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
8 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp

CAP engaged:
VF-3 with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 21 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
26 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-6 with F4F-4 Wildcat (8 airborne, 21 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
25 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-8 with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 22 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 23000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
24 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-71 with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 18 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
19 planes vectored on to bombers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 115,138

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 114 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 49 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
B5N1 Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 113

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 6 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 6 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 1
CV Enterprise
BB North Carolina

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
8 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp

CAP engaged:
VF-3 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 20 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
21 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-6 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 20 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
22 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-8 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 20 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
20 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-71 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
13 planes vectored on to bombers

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 6/10/2018 7:48:37 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/10/2018 3:52:33 PM

Lokasenna

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

That's a very large number of planes on standby and a very low number of planes engaging immediately.

Increase the CAP percentage and then tell us what happens?

Also, there's rain.

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 2

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/10/2018 4:50:45 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Increase the CAP percentage and then tell us what happens?

Also, there's rain.

Oi cmon, 90% CAP is enough. You can see it from active plane numbers and standard 36 frames compartment of US CV fighter groups.
And weather was quite different across reloads, with the same result. I'm not sure moderate rain should make Kates invisible anyway

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 3

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/10/2018 6:57:43 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

That's a very large number of planes on standby and a very low number of planes engaging immediately.

Also, there's rain.

Yeah, on stand by and none scrambled � TF Commander Air Skill? Something caused all those planes to stay on the ground �

Weather? maybe � could have been too much rain to launch? I don't think we know enough on the response model to know for sure, but clearly NOT an error here. This is a model outcome �

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 4

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/10/2018 8:39:19 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Yeah, on stand by and none scrambled � TF Commander Air Skill? Something caused all those planes to stay on the ground �

Weather? maybe � could have been too much rain to launch? I don't think we know enough on the response model to know for sure, but clearly NOT an error here. This is a model outcome �

Not that easy, no

otherwise I would not be so puzzled.
Best commanders available in Guadalcanal are sitting everywhere. 4CVs, 2CVTFs (Halsey+Spruance), all fighter airgroups (60+ inspiration/air all). And I already answered about the weather - RNG changes the weather on reloads, but not the main outcome of Kates going through.

Standby means they are ready to fly - which they did. Does combat animation even shows planes left on the ground? I doubt it. 80-100 Wildcats in all the phases of the combat animation film means they are all in the air and engaged. And there are more joining the fight later so it was 100+ when things were critical. And they can't get through less than 20 fighters? Time is plenty so catching up with the raid is not the issue here, it is the model.

Meanwhile I flipped more save/reloads and finally was able to get some passes on the bombers in the end of air combat. At least this turns out possible in principle, phew... Statistically though, it is kind of stupid to rely on this kind of luck in this kind of sitiation.

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 115,138

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 50 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
B5N1 Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 121

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 4 destroyed, 7 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 4 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 2
DD Laffey
CV Saratoga

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
9 x B5N1 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 5

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/10/2018 11:25:32 PM

Lokasenna

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

No, the combat animation does not show planes on the ground.

What did the combat animation look like at the start of the combat?

The red flag for the performance to me is still the large number of planes on standby rather than airborne. Only 4+ airborne and 25+ on standby? That's lower even than the "rule of thirds" that we know about, with only about 1/7 of the planes actually airborne at the start.

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 6

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/11/2018 4:45:46 AM

durnedwolf

Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

I'd be curious to see if range has an impact. You said that all fighter groups are at zero? Maybe set a few FG to 1 or 2 range. Another thing to try is breaking down any FG that can split into small groups. I think each group gets its own roll.

Set 1 FG at an altitude of 5k. The time for all AC to reach interception should drop dramatically for that FG.

Maybe detection level is low due to weather - which makes me wonder if a recon or search group flying range 1 or 2 would help with the DL?

_____________________________

DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 7

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/11/2018 10:45:07 PM

Lowpe

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

So, you are saying at the very beginning of the combat animation there is 90 Wildcats in the animation?

I have had this happen to me, but as Japan with very poor warning times.

The time for the fighters to assemble seems inordinately long to me....here is a recent fight of mine where the Allies get a little higher but much faster.

Morning Air attack on Kompong Trach , at 57,70

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 25 NM, estimated altitude 37,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Hurricane IIc Trop x 7
P-39D Airacobra x 7
P-40E Warhawk x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIc Trop: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
No.30 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31900
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
No.79 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31550 , scrambling fighters between 31000 and 31550.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
No.261 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31900
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
49th FG/7th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 26600.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
49th FG/9th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 18000 and 26600.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
8th FG/80th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters to 28440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes

(in reply to durnedwolf)

Post #: 8

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/11/2018 11:33:08 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

You don't have 90% CAP - unless fatigue is intervening -when there are only 4 of 21 planes in the air. That said rain and lucky odds are probable big factors. At what altitude came the kates?

Don't forget those values are "estimates".

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 9

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 2:55:59 PM

Kull

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

In 1942, Allied TFs with +100 a/c have a 50% mission coordination penalty. The manual (pg 167) specifically says that applies to "offensive missions", so it should not apply to CAP, but I wonder? Based on those air unit #s it appears that you've got at least three carriers in a single Allied TF, which is usually a bad idea.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 10

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 4:13:20 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

In 1942, Allied TFs with +100 a/c have a 50% mission coordination penalty. The manual (pg 167) specifically says that applies to "offensive missions", so it should not apply to CAP, but I wonder? Based on those air unit #s it appears that you've got at least three carriers in a single Allied TF, which is usually a bad idea.

Not in my experience, except for concentrating all fragile eggs in one wicker basket.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 11

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 4:14:32 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

In 1942, Allied TFs with +100 a/c have a 50% mission coordination penalty. The manual (pg 167) specifically says that applies to "offensive missions", so it should not apply to CAP, but I wonder? Based on those air unit #s it appears that you've got at least three carriers in a single Allied TF, which is usually a bad idea.

I always figure if you put 90% of your aircraft up at first light, those 90% will all have to come down for fuel at the same time. After that, they go into the air in dribs and drabs as the deck crew get them serviced and ready to go. It would be a pure fluke to have 90/100 aircraft ready to meet the enemy with enough fuel to engage in sustained combat maneuvers. There may have been a bunch of aircraft in the air patrolling when the enemy raid was 40 minutes out, but 30 minutes later a lot of those patrolling/intercepting aircraft may have had to RTB for more fuel. For this reason I do not use very high CAP assignments - hold 30% minimum back for smoothing out the refuel cycle.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 12

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 4:55:46 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Is there any way to determine what altitude the bombers are actually coming in at?

It looks to me like the CAP may be too high relative to the bombers and they are getting through unscathed while the escorts have the CAP tied up.

I have similar encounters against the AI in the Marianas at the end of '44, but no more than a very rare leaker ever gets through the Allied CAP buzz saw.
The fee leakers that do get through are downed by the upgraded shipborne AA. Hurts a lot less in late '44 when leakers get through than it does in '42.

My DS is currently on station covering and invasion of Chichi Jima and after two turns of downing almost everything inbound I am considering a cruise down the coast of Japan for the sole purpose of downing enemy anti-naval air.
There isn't much risk to the DS at this point.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 13

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 6:34:55 PM

Lowpe

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

Raid was spotted at 18k, 19k 20k on approach, so odds are the raid came in at 15-17K and then dropped down to launch torpedoes.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 14

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 7:51:57 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

In 1942, Allied TFs with +100 a/c have a 50% mission coordination penalty. The manual (pg 167) specifically says that applies to "offensive missions", so it should not apply to CAP, but I wonder? Based on those air unit #s it appears that you've got at least three carriers in a single Allied TF, which is usually a bad idea.

I always figure if you put 90% of your aircraft up at first light, those 90% will all have to come down for fuel at the same time. After that, they go into the air in dribs and drabs as the deck crew get them serviced and ready to go. It would be a pure fluke to have 90/100 aircraft ready to meet the enemy with enough fuel to engage in sustained combat maneuvers. There may have been a bunch of aircraft in the air patrolling when the enemy raid was 40 minutes out, but 30 minutes later a lot of those patrolling/intercepting aircraft may have had to RTB for more fuel. For this reason I do not use very high CAP assignments - hold 30% minimum back for smoothing out the refuel cycle.

90% CAP setting means 30% will be flying at any given time, with the other 60% on standby and only 10% will need to scramble. IIRC.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 15

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 8:00:08 PM

Kull

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Not in my experience, except for concentrating all fragile eggs in one wicker basket.

I'm surprised. The manual specifically says the "chance of uncoordination is doubled", which sounds ominous. And it's not based on the number of aircraft flying a given mission, but rather on "the number of aircraft in the TF". Why would you suffer that penalty when you could avoid it just by putting each Allied carrier in it's own TF? They can be in the same hex, just not the same TF.

Also surprising (to me anyway) is the Japanese have the same penalty when it's "200+ aircraft" in a single TF. I might have to take another look at the usual "KB concentration" policy during my next Japan game.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 16

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/12/2018 9:05:19 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
What did the combat animation look like at the start of the combat?

The red flag for the performance to me is still the large number of planes on standby rather than airborne. Only 4+ airborne and 25+ on standby? That's lower even than the "rule of thirds" that we know about, with only about 1/7 of the planes actually airborne at the start.

80 Wildcats at start, more arriving later, 115-120 max

Well, range = 0 might have this all-standby thing. It is reasonable - you have radars and stuff, and you don't need to fly back from other hexes you patrol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf
I'd be curious to see if range has an impact. You said that all fighter groups are at zero? Maybe set a few FG to 1 or 2 range. Another thing to try is breaking down any FG that can split into small groups. I think each group gets its own roll.

Set 1 FG at an altitude of 5k. The time for all AC to reach interception should drop dramatically for that FG.

Maybe detection level is low due to weather - which makes me wonder if a recon or search group flying range 1 or 2 would help with the DL?

More range - less planes engaging, that's it. 5k does not remedy the situation with Kates going through. in fact I've seem engagement times smaller for a group at 15k CAP compared to 5k.
Will never split groups on CAP. Kinda strange solution anyway, model should not be like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
So, you are saying at the very beginning of the combat animation there is 90 Wildcats in the animation?

80+ yes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili
You don't have 90% CAP

When I say I do, I do. I check those things

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
In 1942, Allied TFs with +100 a/c have a 50% mission coordination penalty.

I believe mission coordination has nothing to do with CAP

Anyway, here's the save if someone wants to tinker with it more. I'm done, already convinced this is a fishy behaviour. Had run some more save/reloads, seen even smaller strike packages go right through like 15/15 fighters/bombers. To be fair, also've seen some of the Kates shot down by fighters, but not near enough to my taste for the numerical superiority of the Allies.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 17

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/13/2018 3:56:29 AM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Not in my experience, except for concentrating all fragile eggs in one wicker basket.

I'm surprised. The manual specifically says the "chance of uncoordination is doubled", which sounds ominous. And it's not based on the number of aircraft flying a given mission, but rather on "the number of aircraft in the TF". Why would you suffer that penalty when you could avoid it just by putting each Allied carrier in it's own TF? They can be in the same hex, just not the same TF.

Also surprising (to me anyway) is the Japanese have the same penalty when it's "200+ aircraft" in a single TF. I might have to take another look at the usual "KB concentration" policy during my next Japan game.

1% doubled is only 2%. Not so ominous.

I'm not saying the chance is actually 1%, but in my experience it is very, very low as long as you are using decent leaders. Which you'll be doing anyway, so...

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 18

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/13/2018 3:58:00 AM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Anyway, here's the save if someone wants to tinker with it more. I'm done, already convinced this is a fishy behaviour. Had run some more save/reloads, seen even smaller strike packages go right through like 15/15 fighters/bombers. To be fair, also've seen some of the Kates shot down by fighters, but not near enough to my taste for the numerical superiority of the Allies.

It is a scenario game and slightly different "rules" apply, but it is also still 1942. These results mirror my experience, roughly speaking, in 1942 air combats.

Later in the war, with better planes and better radar, performance is much better and more in line with expected results unless there are anomalies (like stratospheric torpedo drops).

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 19

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/13/2018 11:28:37 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
It is a scenario game and slightly different "rules" apply, but it is also still 1942. These results mirror my experience, roughly speaking, in 1942 air combats.

Yup, my conclusion too. And also, what part of this is due to AI bonuses..
Thing is, I wanted to use this example to draw some conclusions with respect to how Japan should behave in 42, and how even more important 8 hex strikes are, given that small packages can go through max (for 42) Allied CAP.

Speaking of which, dos anyone know if head-to-head uses the same "rules" as PBEM?

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 20

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/13/2018 12:54:43 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
It is a scenario game and slightly different "rules" apply, but it is also still 1942. These results mirror my experience, roughly speaking, in 1942 air combats.

Yup, my conclusion too. And also, what part of this is due to AI bonuses..
Thing is, I wanted to use this example to draw some conclusions with respect to how Japan should behave in 42, and how even more important 8 hex strikes are, given that small packages can go through max (for 42) Allied CAP.

Speaking of which, dos anyone know if head-to-head uses the same "rules" as PBEM?

Yes and no. If you are playing both sides yourself, you can leave units under the computer's control so you get something akin to playing against the game scripts, or you can take total control of the units of both sides and test your strategies on both sides.
The game engine is the same and the database is the same, so the combat resolution should come out as if you were playing PBEM. What is missing is FOW in movements and actual combat results.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 21

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/13/2018 1:17:20 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
The game engine is the same and the database is the same, so the combat resolution should come out as if you were playing PBEM.

Thing is I'm not sure that in the different game modes the same turn-end conditions lead to the same outcome in the combat report on average. Hence my question.

I mean, I know for certain that AI vs human uses a bit different combat rules compared to human vs human even if no VHard with its "combat bonuses" is selected. The most noticeable example for me is the behaviour of bombers set at "Bomb Airfield/Ground" + "Commander discretion". Human bombers will fly unescorted into the enemy CAP like no tomorrow. AI bombers rarely do this. Also AI bombers are much more lucky with "Unescorted bombers withdraw" event, usually losing 1 plane against whatever CAP. So using AI games for combat testing might be misleading for PBEMs. Wonder if H2H can remedy this.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 22

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/13/2018 3:40:20 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
The game engine is the same and the database is the same, so the combat resolution should come out as if you were playing PBEM.

Thing is I'm not sure that in the different game modes the same turn-end conditions lead to the same outcome in the combat report on average. Hence my question.

I mean, I know for certain that AI vs human uses a bit different combat rules compared to human vs human even if no VHard with its "combat bonuses" is selected. The most noticeable example for me is the behaviour of bombers set at "Bomb Airfield/Ground" + "Commander discretion". Human bombers will fly unescorted into the enemy CAP like no tomorrow. AI bombers rarely do this. Also AI bombers are much more lucky with "Unescorted bombers withdraw" event, usually losing 1 plane against whatever CAP. So using AI games for combat testing might be misleading for PBEMs. Wonder if H2H can remedy this.

I use H2H to test, so that I can set the settings on both sides.

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 23

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/15/2018 4:44:25 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

These examples are always interesting.

I cannot add much in value other than all the variables "stock explanation".

I am a rookie compared to the advice givers above.

1) The F4F 'ideal' altitude maneuver range is 15000 and < 15000. I wonder if the portion at 20000 were unable to maneuver to dive in time? Dive and speed bonus not enough ?

2) Rain as mentioned. F O W

3) Air Frame vs Air Frame. I am unsure of the speed of the Kate in 1942 vs the speed of the F4F. Would that play a part ?

--

Curious to me I have actually never experienced an AI lopsided engagement with 3 Carriers (Allied) vs a similar number of Carriers IJN in my (admittedly limited) experience verses the AI

I have swallowed fish / bombs but generally also inflicted superior damage to the IJN.

Through 42 and early 43 however I abide by the golden rules.

1) Allied Carriers should always operate under a land based LR CAP of whatever is available no matter where on the map you are. Near Lunga for example I would assume you have P40E's or P39 Aircobra's on base providing CAP at 10K ?

2) Carriers providing invasion support in the early years still need LR Cap coverage... so "Leapfrogging" is an exercise best left till after the F6F Hellcat arrives

3) Don't risk strategic assets for tactical gains. I never 'raid' Tarawa / Makin etc early for the experience unless I am 100% scouted and recon'ed and I know what to expect.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 6/15/2018 4:47:05 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 24

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/15/2018 7:39:39 PM

Lokasenna

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

Kates are slow - I think 235mph max speed. Wildcats are at least in the 300s.

LRCAP over carrier TFs is penalized in the extreme - I want to say 10% effectiveness (so divide whatever you set to be over it by 10 and that's what you get).

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 25

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/15/2018 9:45:11 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Kates are slow - I think 235mph max speed. Wildcats are at least in the 300s.

LRCAP over carrier TFs is penalized in the extreme - I want to say 10% effectiveness (so divide whatever you set to be over it by 10 and that's what you get).

IRL 1942, a sky full of those fluffy white clouds with a few breaks in between was perfect for strike aircraft to move in using the clouds like a bushwhacker uses bushes. It certainly helped the US SBDs at Midway. I wonder if the designers had that in mind when they wrote the intercept code for intercept of a carrier strike with early radar and radios as the tools.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 26

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/22/2018 7:45:40 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

LRCAP over carrier TFs is penalized in the extreme - I want to say 10% effectiveness (so divide whatever you set to be over it by 10 and that's what you get).

Yes understood and my experience echos that. Often only 3 offering CAP protection out of a whole squadron.

Detailed part - perhaps anecdotal (?):

Yet I choose to always ensure I will only ever engage American flattops early in the war if and where I have LR Cap.

My experience ~ limited as it is ~ with 1942 Battles in the Coral Sea , Johnson Island, Canton Island is that American Carriers:

1) With F4Fs of some type
2) Staggered CAP between 5000 - 10000 - 15000 altitude
3) and any LR CAP be it Buffalo's to P39s (usually in the lower altitude range)
4) Can stand toe to toe with an equivalent sized KB

In fact I would say I have always inflicted superior damage under the Nimitz directive "only take risks where the outcomes suggest you can deliver superior damage upon the enemy".

I have eaten fish - swallowed bombs - required slow hauls back to Pearl for repairs but always made it back while the enemy did not with multiple ships.

In my earliest attempts I did "more aggressively pursue ship vs ship" Carrier battles - but the limited support of LR CAP has in my experience made the difference between a surviving ship and ones that dont.

--

This advice changes of course with the Essex and F6F Hellcats in 1943.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 27

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/22/2018 9:25:40 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Kates are slow - I think 235mph max speed. Wildcats are at least in the 300s.

LRCAP over carrier TFs is penalized in the extreme - I want to say 10% effectiveness (so divide whatever you set to be over it by 10 and that's what you get).

So is a viable work around to assign the carrier TF to follow a surface combat TF and assign the LRCAP to cover the surface combat TF?

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 28

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/23/2018 3:50:14 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Kates are slow - I think 235mph max speed. Wildcats are at least in the 300s.

LRCAP over carrier TFs is penalized in the extreme - I want to say 10% effectiveness (so divide whatever you set to be over it by 10 and that's what you get).

So is a viable work around to assign the carrier TF to follow a surface combat TF and assign the LRCAP to cover the surface combat TF?

You know, I tried that a few times, thinking that by the letter of the "law" it should work.

It doesn't work

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 29

RE: I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model - 6/23/2018 6:40:58 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Kates are slow - I think 235mph max speed. Wildcats are at least in the 300s.

LRCAP over carrier TFs is penalized in the extreme - I want to say 10% effectiveness (so divide whatever you set to be over it by 10 and that's what you get).

So is a viable work around to assign the carrier TF to follow a surface combat TF and assign the LRCAP to cover the surface combat TF?

You know, I tried that a few times, thinking that by the letter of the "law" it should work.

It doesn't work .

Yeah, everything falls apart when the CV to CV react routine overrides all other routines and settings.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> I'm still in the dark about the Air Combat model

Page: [1] 2 next > >>