PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Jim D Burns -> PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 10:55:27 AM)

I am going insane with the friggin air combat routines in this game. Below is the latest air combat in Burma in my game, over the last 5 to 6 game days I have suffered similar results every day. This one is made even more ridiculous because every single fighter was a confirmed air to air kill according to the air losses display. My groups were in the mid 50 to mid 60 range in average experience (my best pilots in the groups were high 70’s) with zero fatigue and a 100% intercept for my defending CAP during this raid.

Granted I should have lost the battle but not ONE enemy plane was shot down. NOT ONE!

This is nuts, PLEASE fix the broken air combat routines in this game. I have lost upwards of 300 fighters in a week to about a total of 10 enemy planes shot down. This is pathetic and I assume the same thing will happen to the Japanese when the better US planes arrive. Air combat is far too bloody and far too one sided, PLEASE fix it.

In this example his Tony’s with maneuver ratings of 32 decimated my Mohawks with Maneuver ratings of 30. Yes the Tony’s are better aircraft but not by much, it is obvious experience is the decisive factor to such a degree it breaks all other considerations and decimates the losing side. His groups are in the 80’s according to a recent email he has sent, so a 20-30 point difference makes him invulnerable in air to air combat.

Jim

Day Air attack on Dacca , at 31,24

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-49 Helen x 36

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 48

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Mohawk IV: 48 destroyed
LB-30 Liberator: 5 destroyed
F-5A Lightning: 4 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 74

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
15 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
10 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
9 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
8 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
1 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet



dpstafford -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 10:59:38 AM)

I don't see anything wrong with this result. (Well, maybe a little too bloody over all). I suspect that a large percentage of your losses were on the ground.



Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 11:02:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

I don't see anything wrong with this result. (Well, maybe a little too bloody over all). I suspect that a large percentage of your losses were on the ground.


Nope I confirmed every single fighter was an air to air kill on the air losses display. Every fighter was shot down, EVERY SINGLE ONE and not a single enemy plane lost.

I'm not saying I should have won, but even the Marianas turkey shoot saw a goodly number of US planes shot down, and that battle was far greater odds than the 2-1 we see here.

Jim

P.S. Don't forget I've already lost over 250 other fighters in one week to less than 10 of his. And those were Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-40E's and others. Air Combat is broken period.



Raverdave -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 12:32:00 PM)

Air combat is fine....it is the LCU combat that needs to be fixed.



el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 12:42:46 PM)

I have already confirmed that running aircraft with speeds rated in knots rather than in mph reduces the kill rate. Now I have reviewed devices and found that all air weapons were overrated in range by 300 - 500 % - so I redefined the devices to make them all correct. Nik says this will reduce the kill rate by about 1/3. Next, I noted that the effect values were way too close for all weapons. MGs should have much lower ratings while cannon should have higher ratings. This is a more mixed bag, as it does not affect all planes equally - it depends on the particular plane wether it goes up or down in punch? But early war Japanese planes other than Zero have MGs - so they will lose punch. And .30s lose half their punch while .50s lose only 1/3 - so planes like Nate and Claude will lose a good deal of punch. On the other hand, since virtually all weapons have the same effective range, no one gets a free shot at 5000 yards any more - and that may matter. Nick says more bombers will get through.
Finally, I noted lots of errors in ROC data and also some in speed data - so the relative advantages here will shift. The combination of all these measures may reduce the lethality of air combat considerably - if the range change results in 1/3 less kills and if the speed change about 5-10% less - over all we should see a reduction between 1/2 and 2/3. But this will not be evenly spread - it will be different for different combinations - because the armament changes are not uniform.

Looking for volunteers to test the new plane set next week.



BlackVoid -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 1:19:26 PM)

It's already fixed in Nik's mod. In stock game A2A is way too bloody.



ADavidB -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 4:15:35 PM)

quote:

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-49 Helen x 36

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 48


"Quantity is Everything"...

It's a simple model - the side with more fighters wins. Simply be certain to only go against your opponent when you can assure yourself of a quantitative advantage. The bigger the quantitative advantage, the better you will do.

That's why the "Deathstar" is so effective for the Japanese in 1942 - the KB can put up well over 100 fighters at one location and it is extraordinarily difficult for the Allied player to even match those numbers, let alone exceed them.

The thing to remember is that if you opponent has 100 fighters and 100 bombers attacking one location, elsewhere he has weakened himself. So don't try to stop huge raids - try to ambush small ones with greater numbers.

That's why it is so critical for the Allied player to not waste pilots and planes in 1942 - only by sheer quantities of planes will you be able to stop the Japanese air force.

Now, nothing in what I wrote negates the inherent questions about the validity of the air-to-air model, but it is the only model that we have, and it isn't going to be changed, so we just have to learn how to work around it.

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi



Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 5:22:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Air combat is fine....it is the LCU combat that needs to be fixed.


[&:][X(][&:][X(] You are kidding or your Victoria Bitter or Castlemaine XXXX is past its' best before date.

Air combat is just as funked up as LCU combat/movement...well, no...LCUs are way more whacked, but both could use attention of some kind.

Air combat needs CAP redone at least (make it so CAP aircraft are not all present at any intercept...ie percentage of CAP can make contact with each raid/strike and have this percentage influenced by CAP direction capability) and the strike uncoordination rule could be made so Japan does not get such a huge unwarranted bonus (lesser chance of coordination).. In any event, Japanese CAP should get a penalty for coordination for lack of any direction of CAP aside from visual signals and Allied CAP should get a bonus for constant technical and doctrinal improvement.

LCUs...where to start? ZOC issues...needs to be rethought. Movement issues...needs to be rethought.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 5:35:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

It's already fixed in Nik's mod. In stock game A2A is way too bloody.


Not quite. CAP needs to be tweaked.



String -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 5:44:04 PM)

Anyway, I'm not the least bit surprised that 100 superior fighters wiped out 50 inferior, elderly fighters.



moses -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 5:49:59 PM)

1.) There are too many aircraft in the game.
2.) This traslates to lots of very large air combats.
3.) Large air combats don't work particularly well in this game.
4.) Therefore too many aircraft translates to lots of implausable results.

Simple changing the weapons on the aircraft will have pedictably BAD results.
1.) Small combats which currently work fine will be thrown off.
2.) Since far fewer aircraft wil be getting killed you will now have greater surpluses of aircraft.
3.) So you will soon have even larger air combats which will go on for more prolonged periods because loss rates are lower.

Correct solution IMO.
1.) Reduce replacement rates of bombers and increase ops losses slightly for all aircraft.
(i.e. reduce total number of planes) Less planes=fewer large air battles.
2.) Implement a change which effects only the large air battles. Leave the rest of air-combat alone as it works well enough. Why break the whole system to fix one rare but important case. Just fix that case. Something simple. (i.e. in any air combat any fighter over the 30th has only a 20% chance of engaging or being engaged.) or something like that.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 6:24:01 PM)

I have to agree with Ron on this one. In 7 or 8 pbem games(i was allied in all). In 1942, early or late 42. The out come was always the same. No matter what I did. Midway for the japs in each and every game when against KB. There should be at least a chance of a coral sea out come too some degree. I understand that most jap players will use KB in mass. But the allied play ends up running or hitting else where to survive. If i was a Jap fanboy I would use it in mass myself. So what I am getting at is that Ron I think is correct on this one.[:D] What I mean by Midway for the Japs. In all cases my carrier losses were anywhere from 4 too 6 carriers. Reverse midway. Their losses were 1 or none.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Air combat is fine....it is the LCU combat that needs to be fixed.


[&:][X(][&:][X(] You are kidding or your Victoria Bitter or Castlemaine XXXX is past its' best before date.

Air combat is just as funked up as LCU combat/movement...well, no...LCUs are way more whacked, but both could use attention of some kind.

Air combat needs CAP redone at least (make it so CAP aircraft are not all present at any intercept...ie percentage of CAP can make contact with each raid/strike and have this percentage influenced by CAP direction capability) and the strike uncoordination rule could be made so Japan does not get such a huge unwarranted bonus (lesser chance of coordination).. In any event, Japanese CAP should get a penalty for coordination for lack of any direction of CAP aside from visual signals and Allied CAP should get a bonus for constant technical and doctrinal improvement.

LCUs...where to start? ZOC issues...needs to be rethought. Movement issues...needs to be rethought.





KDonovan -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 6:27:28 PM)

any idea on how high the experience rating was for the Tony's??...cause if it was a crack squadren...and yours where only in the 50s and 60s...it would explain alot



Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 6:50:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

any idea on how high the experience rating was for the Tony's??...cause if it was a crack squadren...and yours where only in the 50s and 60s...it would explain alot



Yeah my opponent mentioned his were in the 80's, but some of my pilots were in the high 70's. I should have got at least some kills. I'm not saying I should have won, but the Japanese should have taken at least SOME losses.

The US lost about 5% - 10% of its F6F Hellcats that were engaged against the Japanese at the Mariana's Turkey Shoot, and they didn't wipe out 100% of the Japanese planes either. Japan lost about 350 of the 500 planes engaged that day.

If memory serves the US had about 900 aircraft (600 or so F6F's) total in the task force and Japan sent several (4 or more) waves of 70-90 aircraft at the task force. So the US had a comfortable 6-1 or 10-1 odds ratio in fighter vs. fighter aircraft against each wave, yet they still lost 24 Hellcats that day.

Also don’t forget my best 70-80 experienced groups have already been decimated earlier in the week and barely managed to kill 8-10 Tony’s total so far to a loss of 250 of my other fighters in addition to these 48 new losses.

Jim



jwilkerson -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 6:59:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

any idea on how high the experience rating was for the Tony's??...cause if it was a crack squadren...and yours where only in the 50s and 60s...it would explain alot



Yeah my opponent mentioned his were in the 80's, but some of my pilots were in the high 70's. I should have got at least some kills. I'm not saying I should have won, but the Japanese should have taken at least SOME losses.

The US lost about 5% - 10% of its F6F Hellcats that were engaged against the Japanese at the Mariana's Turkey Shoot, and they didn't wipe out 100% of the Japanese planes either. Japan lost about 350 of the 500 planes engaged that day.

If memory serves the US had about 900 aircraft (600 or so F6F's) total in the task force and Japan sent several (4 or more) waves of 70-90 aircraft at the task force. So the US had a comfortable 6-1 or 10-1 odds ratio in fighter vs. fighter aircraft against each wave, yet they still lost 24 Hellcats that day.

Also don’t forget my best 70-80 experienced groups have already been decimated earlier in the week and barely managed to kill 8-10 Tony’s total so far to a loss of 250 of my other fighters in addition to these 48 new losses.

Jim



Jim you are correct, the model does break down for larger air battles .. but the forum has been discussing this aspect ( off and on ) for almost a year ( to my knowledge ) so this isn't a surprise. Ultimately, this works in favor of the Allies however ( see GH game versus MC for example ) but for a brief period, the Japanese can get a few licks in.

Train up your fighter pilots with the ground support mission, try to get into the 80s or at least 75 ... ( later you should be able to get into the high 80s and even touch the 90s ) ... mass your planes .. like 2 to 1 over his ... you have intel advantage because you can see his transfers before you make your move ( which he cannot do ) .. so you can do fighter "ambushes" ... and then wait for the P38s ... 100-150 P38s of equal or greater experience will shred Tony's and Tojo's and whatevers ( I speak from experience as Japanese player ). Once you get P38s ( with trained up pilots ) you will rule the skies ...

So yes there is a problem, but above is the work around, which is the best we can do for now.





Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:01:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Anyway, I'm not the least bit surprised that 100 superior fighters wiped out 50 inferior, elderly fighters.


If the air combat took place in a wrestling ring.[8|]



Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:13:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Once you get P38s ( with trained up pilots ) you will rule the skies ...


But there's the rub, I don't want to "rule the skies" later in the game because of a broken game model. I want a tough dogged attrition battle that will last for months. I want to see air groups left in the front lines for months on end and not see 100% of their planes wiped out in 1 friggin day.

How long did the Cactus Air Force fight at Guadalcanal against desperate odds before being pulled out? Four months at least I think. Had results like we see in WitP been the norm in WWII, the Cactus Air Force would have been decimated in 1 or 2 days.

I don't want tips on how to play within the broken model, I want the model fixed. Being decimated in a few days or decimating my opponent in return later isn't fun, it's frustrating in the extreme.

If we all cry out for a fix, perhaps it will be addressed some day. Yes land combat needs help too, but the air combat routines are more important I think since it affects the naval campaign in a more direct manor.

Jim



treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:28:17 PM)

I don't suppose there is any hope of Matrix someday releasing the code...so that those of you that are capable can institute these tweaks.



treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:30:16 PM)

I am seriously considering getting back involved in WitP and have even gone as far as reinstalling everything as before and then I read threads like this and become leary....



Miller -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:33:32 PM)

As a UV player I find threads like this disheartening to read. Puts me off ever buying WITP.

How much of the WITP air model is carried over from UV? I ask because apart from the obscene Corsair bonus the UV air model seems to work well.....



Mike Scholl -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:43:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Once you get P38s ( with trained up pilots ) you will rule the skies ...


But there's the rub, I don't want to "rule the skies" later in the game because of a broken game model. I want a tough dogged attrition battle that will last for months. I want to see air groups left in the front lines for months on end and not see 100% of their planes wiped out in 1 friggin day.

How long did the Cactus Air Force fight at Guadalcanal against desperate odds before being pulled out? Four months at least I think. Had results like we see in WitP been the norm in WWII, the Cactus Air Force would have been decimated in 1 or 2 days.

I don't want tips on how to play within the broken model, I want the model fixed. Being decimated in a few days or decimating my opponent in return later isn't fun, it's frustrating in the extreme.

If we all cry out for a fix, perhaps it will be addressed some day. Yes land combat needs help too, but the air combat routines are more important I think since it affects the naval campaign in a more direct manor.

Jim



ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! The arguement that "it all balances out in the long run" stinks. Just because both sides get to take advantage of the crumby system does not make it less crumby. Whomever mentioned it is correct that the system simply falls apart as the numbers rise. Had the odds been 20 Mohawks to 40 Tony's you would have probably seen a more acceptable result---evidently 2by3 never bothered to test the system with larger numbers. Which is silly as they gave both sides too many aircraft which suffer far too little attrition---and player's being player's they will mass the biggest numbers they can manage.

If they can't fix the upper end of the combat results program, you would think they could at least put a "splitter" mechanism into the process that would chop both sides in to 50 plane chunks to keep the combats from reaching the upper "luniatic fringe" of results.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:51:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Once you get P38s ( with trained up pilots ) you will rule the skies ...


But there's the rub, I don't want to "rule the skies" later in the game because of a broken game model. I want a tough dogged attrition battle that will last for months. I want to see air groups left in the front lines for months on end and not see 100% of their planes wiped out in 1 friggin day.

How long did the Cactus Air Force fight at Guadalcanal against desperate odds before being pulled out? Four months at least I think. Had results like we see in WitP been the norm in WWII, the Cactus Air Force would have been decimated in 1 or 2 days.

I don't want tips on how to play within the broken model, I want the model fixed. Being decimated in a few days or decimating my opponent in return later isn't fun, it's frustrating in the extreme.

If we all cry out for a fix, perhaps it will be addressed some day. Yes land combat needs help too, but the air combat routines are more important I think since it affects the naval campaign in a more direct manor.

Jim



Spot on Jim.[&o]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:52:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I don't suppose there is any hope of Matrix someday releasing the code...so that those of you that are capable can institute these tweaks.


I'd rather they fixed it themselves.



Captain Ed -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 7:59:51 PM)

Curious are you playing with PDU`s on. Your Japanese opponent seems to have a lot of Tony`s. I think having PDU`s on has skewed the game tremendously. In the real world this kind of strike make-up would I think be impossible for the Japanese. I think that PDU`s have such a far reaching effect on this game changing it from a simulation to one of fiction. If you had PDU`s off I doubt your opponent could have put that many Tony`s in the air in one strike, you would most likely have faced a combination of Oscar`s and A6Ms a force you could have had a better result against.



Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 8:12:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

Curious are you playing with PDU`s on. Your Japanese opponent seems to have a lot of Tony`s. I think having PDU`s on has skewed the game tremendously. In the real world this kind of strike make-up would I think be impossible for the Japanese. I think that PDU`s have such a far reaching effect on this game changing it from a simulation to one of fiction. If you had PDU`s off I doubt your opponent could have put that many Tony`s in the air in one strike, you would most likely have faced a combination of Oscar`s and A6Ms a force you could have had a better result against.


Yes we are playing with PDU’s on and he has been converting all of his air groups to Tony’s across the board. I have recently informed him my only option to combat this will be to switch over to the uber 2E to 4E bomber conversion method, something I have resisted doing up to this point.

The Tony isn’t as good as the zero, but I think he chose to do this to streamline his production so he only has one fighter aircraft type in production. I imagine he is or will be producing soon hundreds if not thousands of Tony’s a month.

With a maneuver rating of only 32, it’s a step down from the zero, but the gun rating makes it an effective bomber killer, so perhaps my 4E conversion will be a wasted effort if his Tony’s shred the heavies the way they are shredding everything else currently.

Hindsight being 20/20 I would never have agreed to PDU’s, but nothing changes the fact the air combat routines are busted with or without PDU’s.

Air losses should be reduced by a factor of 10 or more I think. Perhaps only allowing fighters enough ammo for 1 shot would do the trick. Currently it’s not uncommon to see dozens of aces made in a single engagement. While 5 kills in a single mission happened once in a blue moon during the actual war, it happens almost every other day in WitP.

Jim



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 8:17:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I don't suppose there is any hope of Matrix someday releasing the code...so that those of you that are capable can institute these tweaks.


I'd rather they fixed it themselves.


You're asking a lot from Matrix![:D]

They can't even nail down the vanishing leader/unit bug.[:@]
Or, have they've just given up and moved on since there's no more "profit" from this title.[&:]

Do you think they will EVER tweek anymore of the mechanics issues?[&:]







Captain Ed -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 8:26:47 PM)

You would never have faced Tony`s with that level of experience with PDU`s off. Most likely you would have faced only Oscar`s and you would have had a far different result.
I feel your pain.[sm=nono.gif]



aletoledo -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 9:04:28 PM)

quote:

You would never have faced Tony`s with that level of experience with PDU`s off. Most likely you would have faced only Oscar`s and you would have had a far different result.
I feel your pain.

so Japan should have its hands tied even in 1942? I like PDUs, but I understand that its really an allied advantage in the end. they can convert everything to corsairs and p-38s, so they'll win eventually with PDUs.

I suppose that you could say PDUs and the large air combats both skew results in a similair manner. i.e. it helps the japanese early and it really helps the allies later.

I think there has to be a certain degree of change possible in the historical course of the war (which PDUs does), otherwise we're stuck with very few choices. besides that, the argument that PDUs helps the japanese too much with hinddsight in choosing airframes, can be countered with the argument that the allies have the same hindsight when choosing just about everything else (where and when to attack).



moses -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 9:25:29 PM)

I just don't understand the rational for saying that PDU hurts either side.

Oh I forget. The allies actualy had 1000 4E bombers sitting somewhere unused in mid 42 because they couldn't figure out how to put them into squadrens!!!!



dpstafford -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 10:09:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'd rather they fixed it themselves.

Not going to happen. Matrix appears to have one programmer in total trying to keep up with all of the support for their rapidly expanding catalog of games. Until Matrix solves their own internal economic model, it seems unlikely that the A2A or LCU models in WITP will get any attention.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.59375