mind_messing
Matrix Legion of Merit
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
It's not about emotions at all. It's what you think the result is in my game and what I actually see as result in my game. Example is your assumption above. I try to answer everything. How many subs sunk? (Reported) 68 at the moment, quite some will show up as not sunk as for every sub reported sunk I get at least one reported as not sunk later. I estimate around 50 sunk to date. To preempt your answer, yes I know that's just below total USN losses of real life of the whole war. A war without a million air sorties just on ASW. So, to be clear. The game date is in Nov 1943, and you've already sank more Allied subs than historical (even if we are generous and allow 10% to be FoW). Not precisely sure what that is as a proportion of the total subs that the Allies get, but I'll warrant that it's not insignificant. Nor, for that matter, will be the VP gain for Japan, and roughly 10 VP per sub. All this with still the better part of a year and half to play... quote:
1000 sorties a day? Yes, that is ACCURATE considering the number of aircraft and the search/rest settings. So go ahead and make your calculations about how many thousand sorties per sub sunk. If the question arises where are the aircraft coming from I'm using on ASW. Well, most came from China, I had 500 IJAAF medium bombers there against the Chinese and if you have read parts of this AAR you might have noticed that China was totally defeated so there was no other use for these bombers. I planned to use a couple of squadrons as usual, better say as used from vanilla games. When I used a "couple" of squadrons I started to think "wth is going on, my ASW is doing nothing at all". This lead to a spiral where we are now, better say, the numbers on air ASW we have now. Again, I dispute the notion of them doing nothing at all, but the law of diminishing returns is evidently in effect. There's not a linear increasing return for ASW versus aircraft invested - just the same as there is diminishing returns elsewhere in AE (f.e in task force sizes or ship-based AA). quote:
Murdering my supply? See, that's the point where I'm often thinking about discussing things that actual happen in my game with things people THINK to happen in my game. My supply is currently at 6.7 mio tons! Isn't that a WOW? With an insane air R&D programme, building bases like wild, taking halve the map and flying 1000 sorties just for nav search / ASW (plus thousands of CAP and training) my supply is still going up by several thousand tons A DAY! Again, this is a Babes campaign with REDUCED supply output. 6.7m seems an impressive number, but it is only late '43 and supply tends to go fast in the late game quote:
Stratosweep discussion? Ok, I repeat myself. The so called airteam (speaking of TheElf) has been in a fight with me and several others of the naysayers about the stratosweep and the dive. For a long time it was "everything is perfect". Then after a "gonna look into it to prove everthing is perfect phase" we had the reply "the stratosweep is nothing but an exploit, if people doing this they shouldn't complain about getting these results". That means everything is fine for you and there are countermeasures? See, that's where we seem to be different. To me and other naysayers it means something isn't working correctly and the stratosweeps should be banned completely. Myriads of houserules came up, none was working well enough to make the routine working well when one wants to game it. The so well working countermeasures, I can't see them. I was even pointed out examples of AARs, examples of people that know oh how well how to counter it perfectly. Looking at exactly these AARs I copied out lots and lots examples into this AAR of those people exactly doing what they claim not to do, STRATOSWEEPS whenever possible. If they aren't working, why are those great players still using them and not sweeping at reasonable (or historic?) altitudes? Like 10 or 15k ft? A few points on this: 1. The game has moved on a significant degree from the early meta of high altitude sweeps. Effective counters have been found and successfully used - for examples in practice see comments made by others in this thread (or in other AAR's from top players). I've used it - it works. 2. There were changes made to the code to increase the cost of high altitude flying. LoBaron's early comments are quite insightful, and the second altitude HR was a quick and dirty solution to a problem that requires a degree of thought and planning to resolve. 3. Altitude is one variable amongst many in the air combat model. You seem to be assigning undue value to altitude when a wide variety of factors are at play in generating any results (comparative airframes, pilot quality, leaders etc). The success of a sweep cannot be attributed solely to the altitude with which it was flown at as there are many interactions at play. 4. You'll find that good competitive play has a wide variety of altitudes used by sweeping aircraft, as there's a solid understanding of how the characteristics of different airframes operates. A sweep of P-38s flying at 38k against a CAP layered appropriately at 1-5k is not an optimum sweep for the P-38s, and that will be reflected in the results. In short, if you're maxing the altitude roller on your aircraft, you're doing it wrong. The dive gives a nice advantage, but it's not everything. quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy Oh and one more thing as the emotional argument came up. You guys realize I'm no native speaker? Things do piss me off at times but in general I guess you read my stuff as more angry or more emotional as they are. I raised that point given the fact that there was limited evidence presented beyond anecdotes (and a fair degree of hyperbole) rather than your command of English (which is excellent, by the by).
|