The design decision

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The design decision

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The design decision

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The design decision - 7/16/2003 6:11:38 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Matrix needs to make a design decision, maybe they already have.

Do they wish to have a game dominated by CV taskforces,
or a game dominated by LBA. At this time, UV is dominated
by LBA.

The USN CV Task Forces primary roles are to attrit the enemy
aircraft. Occasionally they tangle with enemy CV, but not often.
In fact you could strip the bombers off the CV and just load up with fighters. Some people do.

The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase.

I cant say if that is what was intended, but that is the effect.

When I read accounts of the Pacific War, I read about fast moving
CV striking enemy bases. I dont read about them skulking about
at Nomea.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

Post #: 1

- 7/16/2003 6:58:49 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I think it's a matter of time period. During UV, the US was more careful with CVs as there were fewer to risk. I'd agree with you about fast moving forces later in the war though. If WitP is dominated by LBA, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly - that one's a wait and see though.

For UV, I'm still pretty satisfied with the balance. The New Guinea campaign was dominated by LBA, which occurs here. I think the possible ahistorical "overuse" of LBA elsewhere (SOPAC) is a result of players having hindsight and therefore deviating from the results that occured historically. For instance, a player can strip units from backwater bases and be relatively certain that the IJN won't attack whereas the historical counterpart couldn't always be so sure, so more front-line units needed to be kept back. I don't think there's anyway to design around that though. Maybe some sort of requirements or guidelines that follow the strict historical application, but I don't think many gamers want their hands tied like that.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 2

LOL - 7/16/2003 7:29:27 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase."

:eek: (more when I stop laughing)

OK I've had to reread that post a dozen times to make sure it is saying what I think it is saying.

UV has been out for over 14 months. I figured that out the first time I tried it. There have been hundreds of posts concerning Aircombat TF's set to react that run up into enemy LBA range.
(We all learned not to use react on if the TF was any where near where this could occur.

CV aircraft are poor airbase closers. Unless the airfield is size four or smaller.

It is well established before venturing into LBA range you first must hit the airfield with long range bombers and surface bombardment groups.

I find it very surprising that you find it remarkable that Japanese CV might be hurt if they are in range of escorted strikes from large well stocked airfields.

Did I understand the post correctly?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 3

- 7/16/2003 7:37:41 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

IMHO,

In the period coverd by UV, the dominating factor was LBA destroying transports.

CVs had little impact.

They even had trouble supporting troops on Guadacanal and never suported the troops fighting in New Guinea before Guadacanal or at the same time as Guadacanal.

Which is the time period covered by UV.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 4

Re: The design decision - 7/16/2003 7:40:05 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Matrix needs to make a design decision, maybe they already have.

Do they wish to have a game dominated by CV taskforces,
or a game dominated by LBA. At this time, UV is dominated
by LBA.

The USN CV Task Forces primary roles are to attrit the enemy
aircraft. Occasionally they tangle with enemy CV, but not often.
In fact you could strip the bombers off the CV and just load up with fighters. Some people do.

The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase.

I cant say if that is what was intended, but that is the effect.

When I read accounts of the Pacific War, I read about fast moving
CV striking enemy bases. I dont read about them skulking about
at Nomea. [/B][/QUOTE]

As others have stated, very rarely did CVs stray too close strong LBA bases. Early war months CVs of both sides routinely bombed land bases and airfields but these were recently captured and underdeveloped (like USN carrier raids prior to Coral Sea) and IJN attacks during their expansion phase. After this, rarely did CVs close LBA unless they were capable of achieving air superiority. Even so, many times CVs were hit. Don't even want to mention kamikazes...:eek:

LBA should be feared. Thats one reason why I never use the "react to enemy" aspect of the AI with CV TFs. Doo dee doo dee dooo, off we go into an hornet's nest of LBA. There should be some form of Air Zone of Control mechanism based on recon of bases to establish level of LBA presence which would make the AI "think:rolleyes: " before reacting. I'm hoping.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 5

- 7/16/2003 7:43:24 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]I think it's a matter of time period. During UV, the US was more careful with CVs as there were fewer to risk. I'd agree with you about fast moving forces later in the war though. If WitP is dominated by LBA, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly - that one's a wait and see though.

For UV, I'm still pretty satisfied with the balance. The New Guinea campaign was dominated by LBA, which occurs here. I think the possible ahistorical "overuse" of LBA elsewhere (SOPAC) is a result of players having hindsight and therefore deviating from the results that occured historically. For instance, a player can strip units from backwater bases and be relatively certain that the IJN won't attack whereas the historical counterpart couldn't always be so sure, so more front-line units needed to be kept back. I don't think there's anyway to design around that though. Maybe some sort of requirements or guidelines that follow the strict historical application, but I don't think many gamers want their hands tied like that. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is an easy way to resolve that. Dont allow B-17 to make anti-shipping attacks. Remove the mission.
See? that was very easy.

The other way would be to make the model accurate.
Which as Frag pointed out, it is not.

The problem with 'restricting' an effective mission to 'high exp' groups, is that the player will then connive to raise the exp of the group to the magical level where suddenly they become effective.

It is that type of 'gamey' useage that breaks the model.
If that type of tweaking were prevented, then there would be no problem.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 6

Re: LOL - 7/16/2003 7:48:52 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]"The LBA are so deadly that it is suicide to risk Kido Butai
in close proximity to a well supply airbase."

:eek: (more when I stop laughing)

OK I've had to reread that post a dozen times to make sure it is saying what I think it is saying.

UV has been out for over 14 months. I figured that out the first time I tried it. There have been hundreds of posts concerning Aircombat TF's set to react that run up into enemy LBA range.
(We all learned not to use react on if the TF was any where near where this could occur.

CV aircraft are poor airbase closers. Unless the airfield is size four or smaller.

It is well established before venturing into LBA range you first must hit the airfield with long range bombers and surface bombardment groups.

I find it very surprising that you find it remarkable that Japanese CV might be hurt if they are in range of escorted strikes from large well stocked airfields.

Did I understand the post correctly? [/B][/QUOTE]

Surprising? What does that mean in this context?

In combination with the 'gimping' of the Zero and the demonstratable bias of US fighters, Kido Butai is not able to survive combined airstikes 'en mass'.

However...oddly enough the USN IS.

I have found that any TF I have in UV where I have 6 USN CV
in one hex is virtually immune to ANY airstrike EXCEPT
the hypothetical ALL LBA at Rabual and they manage to all launch
strike. ONLY in that case, are the USN CV at risk.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 7

LOL - 7/16/2003 8:07:13 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

"In combination with the 'gimping' of the Zero and the demonstratable bias of US fighters, Kido Butai is not able to survive combined airstikes 'en mass'."

:eek: (more when I stop laughing again)

However...oddly enough the USN IS.

"I have found that any TF I have in UV where I have 6 USN CV
in one hex is virtually immune to ANY airstrike EXCEPT
the hypothetical ALL LBA at Rabual and they manage to all launch
strike. ONLY in that case, are the USN CV at risk"

:eek: (more when I stop laughing harder)

Hi, OK it was the "combined airstrikes en mass" that set me off on the first point.

Then again "Only in that case are the USN CV at risk" Japanese combined airstrikes en mass will hurt the USN CV.

weak scattered attacks do not hurt the IJN CV very often. (and thats what you get early in the game)

During the time period covered by UV the USN never had a 6 CV force operate together. Later when they did they were able to operate in areas where "Combined airstrikes en mass" did not occur. (With pilots trained to levels as Japanese have in UV unless they are squandered away)

Have you never encountered a Japanese player who places all his CV in the same hex and runs around terrorizing the allied player?

If the USN player takes the time to upgrade his ships and then massess them they are a very potent force. If he tries the same tactic without first upgrading the ships he gets much poorer results.

However even if the USN player waits for all 6 CV and upgrades the escort AA if he sails within range of escorted Betty/Nells he is in for a rude shock. (I've seen 200 Betty/Nell with 100+ Zero escorts make a strike and sink outright 2 USN CV (The IJN suffered heavy loss and USN CV were in 3 TF in same hex but one TF lost both CV) (And 4 days later IJN TF's with 10 CV sank remaining 4 USN CV.

What I mean by surprising is, are these statements in earnest.
Do these results really puzzle you or give you pause to wonder at them?

Large airfields are dangerous, you didn't know this?
Large combined mass airstrikes are dangerous to which ever side is on the bombing end. You didn't know this?

You think these results are incorrect?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 8

Re: LOL - 7/16/2003 8:32:55 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]"In combination with the 'gimping' of the Zero and the demonstratable bias of US fighters, Kido Butai is not able to survive combined airstikes 'en mass'."

:eek: (more when I stop laughing again)

However...oddly enough the USN IS.

"I have found that any TF I have in UV where I have 6 USN CV
in one hex is virtually immune to ANY airstrike EXCEPT
the hypothetical ALL LBA at Rabual and they manage to all launch
strike. ONLY in that case, are the USN CV at risk"

:eek: (more when I stop laughing harder)

Hi, OK it was the "combined airstrikes en mass" that set me off on the first point.

Then again "Only in that case are the USN CV at risk" Japanese combined airstrikes en mass will hurt the USN CV.

weak scattered attacks do not hurt the IJN CV very often. (and thats what you get early in the game)

During the time period covered by UV the USN never had a 6 CV force operate together. Later when they did they were able to operate in areas where "Combined airstrikes en mass" did not occur. (With pilots trained to levels as Japanese have in UV unless they are squandered away)

Have you never encountered a Japanese player who places all his CV in the same hex and runs around terrorizing the allied player?

If the USN player takes the time to upgrade his ships and then massess them they are a very potent force. If he tries the same tactic without first upgrading the ships he gets much poorer results.

However even if the USN player waits for all 6 CV and upgrades the escort AA if he sails within range of escorted Betty/Nells he is in for a rude shock. (I've seen 200 Betty/Nell with 100+ Zero escorts make a strikes and sink outright 2 USN CV (The IJN suffered heavy loss and USN CV were in 3 TF in same hex but one TF lost both CV) (And 4 days later IJN TF's with 10 CV sank remaing 4 USN CV.

What I mean by surprising is, are these statements in earnest.
Do these results really puzzle you or give you pause to wonder at them?

Large airfields are dangerous, you didn't know this?
Large combined mass airstrikes are dangerous to which ever side is on the bombing end. You didn't know this?

You think these results are incorrect? [/B][/QUOTE]

I have not had the results you claim to.
I have seen a miniscule strike of 60 planes breakthru CAP
and badly beat up Kido Butai.
I have NOT seen that with USN CV.

After Midway I dont recall the Japs having 6 CV let alone putting them all in one hex. There is no standard for comparison.
I DO know however that CACTUS itself was NOT deemed sufficient
to stave off the Japs by itself. Thus we have the Battle of the
Eastern Solomans.

In UV it is very easy to see a fragmented strike get slaughtered.
I have never seen a FULL LBA attack launched from rabual against the USN where they ALL launch. Almost always something
goes wrong.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 9

Re: Re: LOL - 7/16/2003 9:00:50 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I have not had the results you claim to.
I have seen a miniscule strike of 60 planes breakthru CAP
and badly beat up Kido Butai.
I have NOT seen that with USN CV.

After Midway I dont recall the Japs having 6 CV let alone putting them all in one hex. There is no standard for comparison.
I DO know however that CACTUS itself was NOT deemed sufficient
to stave off the Japs by itself. Thus we have the Battle of the
Eastern Solomans.

In UV it is very easy to see a fragmented strike get slaughtered.
I have never seen a FULL LBA attack launched from rabual against the USN where they ALL launch. Almost always something
goes wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, What am I to do with you Chiteng? Your a bright lad. A bit too stuborn for my taste. You need to stop and think things out.

"CATUS itself was NOT deemed sufficient to stave off the Japs be itself" Is this the the size 1-2-3 airfield captuered in Aug 42 or the airfield in May 43?

"After Midway I dont recall the Japs having 6 CV let alone putting them all in one hex. "

No but at Midway they were all in one hex and the LBA had no effect on them (unless you consider it had an effect on the impact of the arriving USN Strike later)

Place all 6 CV in one hex in UV and you can steam around most allied bases. (Just don't confuse the empty Noumea of May 42 with what you will find there in May 43) Townsville is no problem during most of 42.

I liked the way you said in another post "the allied player will connive to train his pilots" to raise their level if missions are defined by experiance levels. That rates another :eek: LOL

Do you mean to say if you have pilots that can not fly a mission because they are not trained you would not take the time to train them? Thats the issue. Not that the mission will never be flown (and make it dangerous to get close to LBA) but that for a time it will be less dangerous (while the pilots train)

I'm never certain you are serious. I always think you are just pulling our collective tails with some of your posts.
(Because the answer is so clear to me I wonder how you can't see it)

The longer a war lasts the more deadly it gets. This has always been true in all wars. Green troops do not kill as well as troops that have had a lot of practice.

Events that occur in one period of a war can not be supposed to have been possible at any other (early/later) Green troops don't have the skill to do some things early. Then what was once easy becomes impossible (German U-boat 1939 compare to German U-boat 1945) Or what was once impossible becomes easy.
(The Great Turkey Shoot)

War is not static. Nether should you be (Iraqi Info Minister) You have to always beware of change. (and be vigerous in enacting positive change and on guard to prevent negative changes)

Are these issues really so bewildering?

Anyone else have these issues? post up so I can figure out what is wrong.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 10

Weeeeeeeeeellll.... - 7/16/2003 9:08:07 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

That last post by Mogami should settle things. I'd leave town if the post were directed at me.;)

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 11

- 7/16/2003 9:18:34 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Until the B-17's are no longer the invincible ship destroyers of UV,
the issue will never be settled.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 12

B-17 - 7/16/2003 9:20:48 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Until the B-17's are no longer the invincible ship destroyers of UV,
the issue will never be settled. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Go read AAR Dadman/Mogami. It was a scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN. I did not use the B-17 in antiship missions. (With a few unsuccessfull exceptions)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 13

- 7/16/2003 9:27:31 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Chiteng,
I know you get dumped on a lot - I've been guilty of it as well. Can you post a zip file of a turn with one of the B-17 strikes you talk about? Or Kido Butai getting creamed by LBA? I mean we've all beaten this stuff to death, and we're all pretty settled into our respective camps. I'd just like to settle it once and for all and move on. So if you have a save game or a screen shot from a strike that shows what you're talking about, I would really like to see it. I think it might help swing more people to your point of view or at least get everyone to simmer down a bit if they could see it with their own eyes...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 14

replay - 7/16/2003 9:35:05 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Yes please. I'd love to see the replay where unescorted B-17's come in and sink your IJN CV (or even score a hit or two.)(at sea)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 15

- 7/16/2003 9:38:43 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]I know you get dumped on a lot - I've been guilty of it as well. Can you post a zip file of a turn with one of the B-17 strikes you talk about? Or Kido Butai getting creamed by LBA? I mean we've all beaten this stuff to death, and we're all pretty settled into our respective camps. I'd just like to settle it once and for all and move on. So if you have a save game or a screen shot from a strike that shows what you're talking about, I would really like to see it. I think it might help swing more people to your point of view or at least get everyone to simmer down a bit if they could see it with their own eyes...[/B]

[B]Hi, Yes please. I'd love to see the replay where unescorted B-17's come in and sink your IJN CV (or even score a hit or two.)(at sea)[/B]

Be careful, I asked Chiteng for evidence and he accused me of being a liar...evidently he has made this information clearly available to us all and if you dont see it you're lying.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 16

Settings - 7/16/2003 10:05:02 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I think he should make sure his settings are on historical.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 17

I see we're still going strong on this - 7/16/2003 10:46:25 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

If Chiteng is not prepared to lay his cards on the table by running a solid set of B-17 vs Kido Butai (or whatever) tests, perhaps another player(s) could do it and present them publicly in an "open" thread. That way everyone knows what the reality is and we might save some server space for other topics.

Before I ended my UV playing to concentrate on WitP, I ran some tests along the same lines and posted my findings. A more extensive series of tests by UV players may help clarify exactly what the most probable results will be.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 18

- 7/16/2003 3:13:06 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I really think this issue would go away if two things in UV were fixed:

1) Fatigue rates for CAP were downgraded to make CAP sustainable instead of the current good for a few turns max.

2) Disablement for AA units was quartered so units didn't become completely worthless when subjected to daily LBA.

As it sits now, UV is just silly in these regards. We already know this has been partially fixed in WitP as it is quite obviously a problem, be we don't have WitP yet, so we continue to suffer from this abuse in UV.

Not much point picking on Chiteng as to a certain extent he is quite right, he just singles out the B-17 specifically when it is more of a general problem with players abilities to impose extremes in UV that were not historically possible like basing 200+ LBAs at a single base to ensure rediculous levels of suppression, etc). This is not England where aircraft took off from 30 separate airfields to form up for a raid on Germany. This is the Pacific where it took an hour to get 12 aircraft up from a single base. UV's abstraction of time into two phases steals the reality of this from us and makes such silly things possible.

Mogami's AARs while being a good indicator of what things are like show one thing clearly (please note Mogami doesn't send his LBA in at 100/1000 feet), use of planes historically result in historical results. If Mogami cared to switch to the silly tactics that others use such as mass carpet bombing at low altitudes, he would see Chiteng's issues, but he plays the game without exploiting it's obvious weakness.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 19

Re: B-17 - 7/16/2003 6:33:58 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Go read AAR Dadman/Mogami. It was a scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN. I did not use the B-17 in antiship missions. (With a few unsuccessfull exceptions) [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, better to husband them, train them, and then unleash them to pound the crap out of my forward bases from Oct '42 onward...

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 20

Re: replay - 7/16/2003 6:47:52 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Yes please. I'd love to see the replay where unescorted B-17's come in and sink your IJN CV (or even score a hit or two.)(at sea) [/B][/QUOTE]

I didnt say CV Mogami. AND you already have seen the AAR files I posted since you commented on them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 21

- 7/16/2003 6:49:20 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]I know you get dumped on a lot - I've been guilty of it as well. Can you post a zip file of a turn with one of the B-17 strikes you talk about? Or Kido Butai getting creamed by LBA? I mean we've all beaten this stuff to death, and we're all pretty settled into our respective camps. I'd just like to settle it once and for all and move on. So if you have a save game or a screen shot from a strike that shows what you're talking about, I would really like to see it. I think it might help swing more people to your point of view or at least get everyone to simmer down a bit if they could see it with their own eyes...[/B]

[B]Hi, Yes please. I'd love to see the replay where unescorted B-17's come in and sink your IJN CV (or even score a hit or two.)(at sea)[/B]

Be careful, I asked Chiteng for evidence and he accused me of being a liar...evidently he has made this information clearly available to us all and if you dont see it you're lying. [/B][/QUOTE]
You claimed I was the only one complaining about B-17s.
I have not seen your retraction. However I HAVE seen other posters copying and pasting the posts you refuse to read.
If its isnt lying, then what is it?

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 22

- 7/16/2003 9:31:37 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]You claimed I was the only one complaining about B-17s.
I have not seen your retraction. However I HAVE seen other posters copying and pasting the posts you refuse to read.
If its isnt lying, then what is it? [/B][/QUOTE]

Jesus, Chiteng! Can't you be a little less inflamatory? No wonder you think people are attacking you. :D

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 23

- 7/16/2003 9:37:24 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Jesus, Chiteng! Can't you be a little less inflamatory? No wonder you think people are attacking you. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

That is nothing compared to the bile tossed at me, and for far less.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 24

- 7/16/2003 10:07:53 PM

crsutton

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

Everybody has their pet gripes. I have made a few of my own over the past year or so. (Don't get me started on naval bombardment again). However, as the game stands, I am satisfied for the moment and am enjoying it. I would rather the folks at Matrix focus on the new game. Obviously, time is a precious resource. I would rather that resouce go into
WITP.

I think I can live with UV as it is for a while. Perhaps some of the faults will be retro-fixed after WitP comes our. Perhaps not. Perhaps we will not be as concerned once we have the new game.

If you really want to hear some whining, go over and visit the official forum page for Forgotten Battles- IL2 Sturmovik. You will be blown away but the bickering and bile there. We don't need it here.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 25

Re: Re: replay - 7/18/2003 1:40:57 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I didnt say CV Mogami. AND you already have seen the AAR files I posted since you commented on them. [/B][/QUOTE]

Chiteng,

The only AAR I've seen is the one you posted that had 9 B-17s get a single hit on a single Maru. That result is totally within the HISTORICAL reality. I can give the dates, names of the ships and squadrons involved if you wish.

Is there another AAR that demonstrates your point, that I missed?

Regards

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 26

- 7/18/2003 3:16:39 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I really think this issue would go away if two things in UV were fixed:

1) Fatigue rates for CAP were downgraded to make CAP sustainable instead of the current good for a few turns max.

2) Disablement for AA units was quartered so units didn't become completely worthless when subjected to daily LBA.

As it sits now, UV is just silly in these regards. We already know this has been partially fixed in WitP as it is quite obviously a problem, be we don't have WitP yet, so we continue to suffer from this abuse in UV.

Not much point picking on Chiteng as to a certain extent he is quite right, he just singles out the B-17 specifically when it is more of a general problem with players abilities to impose extremes in UV that were not historically possible like basing 200+ LBAs at a single base to ensure rediculous levels of suppression, etc). This is not England where aircraft took off from 30 separate airfields to form up for a raid on Germany. This is the Pacific where it took an hour to get 12 aircraft up from a single base. UV's abstraction of time into two phases steals the reality of this from us and makes such silly things possible.

Mogami's AARs while being a good indicator of what things are like show one thing clearly (please note Mogami doesn't send his LBA in at 100/1000 feet), use of planes historically result in historical results. If Mogami cared to switch to the silly tactics that others use such as mass carpet bombing at low altitudes, he would see Chiteng's issues, but he plays the game without exploiting it's obvious weakness. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good post Herr Frag, particularily insightful regarding the difference between player styles Like the Mog-ster, i too tend to prefer non exploitive tactics, so no mass 1000/100k raids for me either

Too your list I'll add one that has not been mentioned recently at least

3) Aircraft repair/servicability rates.

A large factor that mostly goes under the radar in regards to the LBA issue in light of talk about B-17's , national bias, blah blah blah, is that one of the BIGGEST differences between UV and the real McCoy, are the aircraft repair rates and the ratio of servicable to unservicable aircraft.

SoPac theater was as mentioned in the past, MURDER on machines as well as men and most air units during the early/mid period days covered by the game would be lucky to have half their "paper" strength on hand at any one time for any one operation.

Add to that, planes that are damaged and do not end up "op losses" repair at very high rates, such that a couple days off and you have mostly, if not all your planes ready vs damaged. This allows allows a highly increased tempo of air ops and contributes to LBA's dominance. Lastly a nitpick i've had from day one is that damaging aircraft on the ground is all too rare. Its the opposite problem of the ground crew/footsoldier/flak issue which is reversed. Matrix put in a more realistic repair rate for 17's but players screamed. It messed with their neat tidy plans and thirst for 'action' so it was heavily muted to be all but useless again. The reality is, is that if you push your planes hard like your men (morale) you will quickly end up on the bad side of your chief mechanic when he tells you you've got 4 planes servicable out of 30 due to a variety of issues from bullet holes to the need to rebuild an engine. And a day or two is not going to fix it. Thats another reason why air units "rotated" frequently. To sustain an air op, you need to pace both your men and your machines.

LBA did dominate the SoPac theater.....it just didn't dominate it as fast or as serverely as UV allows via it's mechanics + Player exploits. CV's could dominate a land base being mobile platforms but they needed strength in preportion to the target and even then there was still a risk.

It remained a long fought war of attrition. Let me put it another way. In UV, players fight a campaign with PAPER strength LBA figures and the results obviously tend to look more impressive than real life. If players were forced to fly with ACTUAL Strength LBA it would not be as dominating or as quick paced as we see now

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 27

- 7/18/2003 3:48:45 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Yep, don't forget the average missions were over 30 hours, yet here we are flying them daily. Last I checked there was 24 hours in a day except of course where I work :D

Couple this with command and control problems with airfield towers causing it to take an hour to get 12 planes into the air and formed up and 1 1/2 hours to get them back down on the ground safely, and you start to see just how silly these 100+ plane raids really become.

Gary needs to add a Sick Call, where 20-30% of the bases support staff and pilots are randomly unavailable due to malaria effects on any given day.

Couple that to any storm throwing a random percentage of aircraft into damaged status.

Now add poor food quality to the mix and problems sleeping due to the wonderful climate (unless of course all USAF pilots came from the Bayoo (or whoever the heck you spell that) :D

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 28

- 7/18/2003 5:01:11 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I agree that these are legitimate issues that could be addressed in the game, but it is also adding more and more levels of complexity that have to be modelled and dealt with...adding to the micromanagement problems already existing.

Sure, malaria would probably have a certain percentage of people unable to fly at any given time. But malaria is already reflected in losses to ground units with the increased attrition rates.

Aircraft repair isnt realistically modeled, but pilot morale, fatigue, etc have their effect in keeping planes from flying continuous missions.

Suppose GG does address all of these minor issues, what unneccessary niceties will we nitpick him for next? Toilet paper in Brisbane is softer than toilet paper at Lunga, making Lunga pilots unable to fly as many long missions? Availability of beer and native women in Cairns gradually raising disruption levels of troops stationed there? Where does it stop ?!?! :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 29

- 7/18/2003 5:59:15 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Toilet paper in Brisbane is softer than toilet paper at Lunga, making Lunga pilots unable to fly as many long missions?[/QUOTE]

So thats why the Brits kept the place for so long eh? :D

Figures them criminals get the cream of the crop as always! ;)

Seriously though, due to scales, abstraction needs to deal with *stuff*. Certain things were *abstracted*, certain things were not for a *fun factor*.

I personally think the *altitude* aspect should have been left abstracted as it opens up too many holes in the AI for player abuse. Bombers should fly at abstracted altitudes based on the detection information of the target, with some random oops tossed it (whoops! I didn't notice them 40mm AA guns until they shot at me at 100 feet).

I think it takes more away from the game then it adds value (fun factor).

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 30