RE: 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

dpstafford -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 10:12:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

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!!!!

I tend to agree. It is the production numbers that need tweaked. Not PDU.

But it's not gonna happen. See above.

I will have to give the Nik Mod a try.



Ideologue -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 10:42:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

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.


I wouldn't go as far as to say the air combat model is totally broken, but ammo as well as opportunities to use it do seem to be awfully plentiful in every engagement.



In response to the point about "never seeing a Midway," it happens from time to time, as long as the Allied player masses his carriers and the Japanese player splits his. I stomped a 4-CV KB with two TFs of 2 CVs apiece, without loss, only heavy damage on one of the task forces (which is pretty much the "Midway model," if the second TF had had one CV by itself, ala Yorktown, I guess it would've been sunk).

I did eventually lose them on the way home, but that was because I was stupid and didn't take into account submarines.[>:]



1275psi -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 10:43:17 PM)

Playing as japan into the 8th month of 43 in UV, I really, really wish the air combat model there was the one we have in WITP - even the corsairs are OK.

Im still getting strikes through - and experienced pilots are getting kills -but the rookies die like flies

What really seems to make a difference is the moral check - lots of pilots bug out a lot earlier -and subsequently survive for another day
I know Moral is different in WITP - wonder how much this effects losses?

For my next game of WITP I will be house ruling that AF size equals number of squadrons on a base, plus some sort of CAP limit
That might make it less bloody



Bombur -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 11:07:04 PM)

quote:


I will have to give the Nik Mod a try.


-You win´t regret from doing it. Up to now, Nik´s mod is the best fix to many of complaints about WiTP. I´ve simply gave up playing stock scenarios, only play Nik mod.



jwilkerson -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 11:20:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


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.



But interestingly - Scholl and I HAVE been able to get into the "long drawn out" attrition battle Jim is talking about - but because in this game we have both CHOSEN to play with smaller numbers of aircraft .. ( i.e. self imposed "stacking limits" ) .. if both players play this way - you can get what you desire ... but to make the game do that by default will require some changes, this is true.
And btw we don't have any house rules about it .. we just both do it because that is our nature ... now in other games, where players have hit me with 100 4eB .. I have fought back with 100 Tonies ... and so it goes ... but in those games, ultimately the 100 P38s have the last laugh !!






Oleg Mastruko -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/22/2006 11:47:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

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]



This is 100% correct and is the core of the problem we have here.

PDUs skew the game in many directions - in this case obviously in favor of IJA player. But it didn't have to be so. Since you (the original poster) play with PDU ON and he obviously has some dozens of Tonys how come you didn't upgrade crap Mohawks to something that would rip apart his Tonys, and used it in numbers against his expected strike?

How come you don't have at least 150 heavies ready to level the Tony base(s) and kill hundereds of the aircraft on the ground?

So, excuse me for being too harsh, but you did two stupid things - didn't upgrade crap Mohawks to something better, and didn't carpet bomb Tony base - and you complain when you get clobbered?

I think this is yet another case of player not being a good player/strategist, or thinking he's "just being fair", and turning his anger on the system when things go bad. If you play with PDUs ON (which we all know is a fantasy candyland where all realism goes outta window) and you didn't upgrade your bombers to 4E you're not playing this game as you should. Obviously your IJA opponent didn't have any qualms when it came to mass upgrading Oscar flying coffins to Tonys. You had and you think the game is to blame?

PDUs are fantasy land, on which I think we all agree. Once you're in the fantasy land you better start doing fantasy things to get even, not playing "fairly".

O.



Sardonic -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 12:35:50 AM)

What good will it do for Nick to fix anything. If everyone is playing CHS?



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 12:39:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

What good will it do for Nick to fix anything. If everyone is playing CHS?



Who is everyone? [:D]

I wait for new version of Nik's mod, new version of AB map, and new patch of WITP proper to finally give Nik's mod a spin.

Come to think of it that is no less than three new versions to wait - hopefully I'll see them sometime this year [8D]



Nikademus -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 12:53:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Nik says this will reduce the kill rate by about 1/3.

Nick says more bombers will get through.


Nik also explained why this would happen; because the game engine is not designed to handle a2a combat with gun devices set to a maximum range of 1. It will still attempt to resolve a2a combat at ranges 2-6 and will display it in the combat animations. (i.e. it will show plane x firing on plane y at ranges 2-6 even if it's guns have a max range of 1)



Cpt Sherwood -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 1:00:43 AM)

oops, double post



Cpt Sherwood -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 1:01:31 AM)

Nik, will they get any hits at 2-6 range? Or will the engine just spend time trying?



Nikademus -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 1:04:46 AM)

No hits...the routine will resolve the combat exactly as in stock in terms of range selections by the aircraft only anything firing at range 2 or more will never hit anything because the devices in Sid's altered files were changed to range 1. You can't make the a2a model only fight at range 1. It is hard-coded to resolve combat at ranges 1-6.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 1:23:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.....


Wrong, the air model is probably the part of WITP that is the closest of UV. The worst part of the two models is that every unit on CAP will intercept every incoming unit, even if it has fought allready ten raids this turn.

In UV I saw 17 Corsairs intercept 100 Betties/Helens escorted by 50 Oscars and 150 Zeroes They shot down more than 100 AC and turned back most of the others for 4-6 losses, and the Japanese units had all experience of 60+.

What saved UV from the unhistorical results so often seen in WITP was that there was far less AC and concentration was not possible on the same way, or rather not so easily and so soon in the war. But deathstars allready existed, heavy bombers were allready super-killers and so on.



treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 1:45:05 AM)

Not having monkeyed around with A2A yet what effects come about by:

#1 - Halving the Durability of the AC

#2 - Halving the Maneuverability AC

#3 - Halving the Range of the guns

#4 - Halving the effect of the guns

#5 - Halving the accuracy of the guns

Just curious...maybe I'll create a test scenario and find out for myself unless someone else already has.



Bombur -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 2:01:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

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.....


Wrong, the air model is probably the part of WITP that is the closest of UV. The worst part of the two models is that every unit on CAP will intercept every incoming unit, even if it has fought allready ten raids this turn.

In UV I saw 17 Corsairs intercept 100 Betties/Helens escorted by 50 Oscars and 150 Zeroes They shot down more than 100 AC and turned back most of the others for 4-6 losses, and the Japanese units had all experience of 60+.

What saved UV from the unhistorical results so often seen in WITP was that there was far less AC and concentration was not possible on the same way, or rather not so easily and so soon in the war. But deathstars allready existed, heavy bombers were allready super-killers and so on.


-Latter versions of WiTP (2.40-2.42) seem to result in pretty low losses in A2A, even in large battles.
However, I never saw those Corsairs in action.



el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 2:13:47 AM)

quote:

Nik also explained why this would happen; because the game engine is not designed to handle a2a combat with gun devices set to a maximum range of 1. It will still attempt to resolve a2a combat at ranges 2-6 and will display it in the combat animations. (i.e. it will show plane x firing on plane y at ranges 2-6 even if it's guns have a max range of 1)


It probably is accidental, but this is right! In the Falklands, we believe EVERY Sidewinder that failed to hit was launched at too great a range and ran out of fuel/energy. [That was one case in 6 - exactly 5 in 6 hit.] One reason was that planes were modified to shoot Sidewinder with NO radar to tell the target range - so pilots had to guess. Well, with guns it is the same thing, particularly in WWII when they didn't have gunlaying radar on planes. Many misses are going to be shots at too great a range. I have no particular problem with this. I DO have a problem exaggerating the range of ALL weapons by 300 to 500 % and then complaining that the air combat is too bloody. What do you expect?



el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 2:18:00 AM)

quote:

Wrong, the air model is probably the part of WITP that is the closest of UV. The worst part of the two models is that every unit on CAP will intercept every incoming unit, even if it has fought allready ten raids this turn.


While this may be what you have seen, it is NOT true in the sense that other results are possible. I find multiple strikes work very well BECAUSE it is NOT true. The later strikes get through because the cap is gone - or almost gone. Typically, the SECOND strike faces EXTRA CAP - if there are more planes available and the field is still up - but after that the CAP seems to get "tired" - it becomes less effective. After about 5 strikes the CAP seems to die - if the strikes are big enough. Once I had a single Boomerang go up late in a strike series - he took on dozens of Zeros and even shot one down - I wanted to give him a medal - even though I was the Japanese! But my strike penetrated with all its bombers.



el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 2:25:04 AM)

quote:

Not having monkeyed around with A2A yet what effects come about by:

#1 - Halving the Durability of the AC

#2 - Halving the Maneuverability AC

#3 - Halving the Range of the guns

#4 - Halving the effect of the guns

#5 - Halving the accuracy of the guns

Just curious...maybe I'll create a test scenario and find out for myself unless someone else already has.


Having done an analysis, I conclude:

accuracy is correct - leave it alone UNLESS the particular weapon has a true data error - accuracy is the square root of ROF - nothing fancy - just that - and it is not a bad indicator of hit probability given all ranges are about the same - as ROF goes up HP goes up - but not directly - this is correct

range should be 1 in virtually all cases [Exception - 57mm and above IF you define new weapons - I have for Ki-102b - it gets a range of 2] This means you are dividing range by 3, 4 or 5 in most cases.

effect should be the cube root of weapon round weight with the special cases that .30 is 1, .50 is 2. On that basis, 15mm becomes 3, 20mm becomes 7, 23 mm becomes 8, etc.

aircraft speed should be expressed in knots

aircraft maneuverability and ROC should be correct - change only if the data is wrong

aircraft vulnerability should be changed only if there is some reason to think that plane is wrong - otherwise leave it as is - I do not even understand what it means in objective terms - I don't mess with what I do not understand the definition of

planes with radar should be given it - thus Japanese night fighters that actually have radar need to be so fitted if you want them to work right




el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 2:29:11 AM)

quote:

No hits...the routine will resolve the combat exactly as in stock in terms of range selections by the aircraft only anything firing at range 2 or more will never hit anything because the devices in Sid's altered files were changed to range 1. You can't make the a2a model only fight at range 1. It is hard-coded to resolve combat at ranges 1-6.


This is really good. For one thing, it means that planes with long range weapons can still fit in the model. Up to 75mm guns - and air to air rockets - may be used at ranges greater than 1 - I believe some may at least make 3 effective range - and 4 might be possible - while 2 is fairly common for heavy weapons.

It ALSO is good in another sense. Many pilots and gunners want to shoot at too great a range. It is natural and a horrible waste of ammunition. It is a reason the average pilot or gunner NEVER scores a kill EVER period!
The model is probably going to bring us closer to reality than any programmer would have done - if we combine range 1 weapons with this attempt to shoot at whatever range the tangle ends at.



irishman -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 3:36:29 AM)

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!



spence -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:09:49 AM)

I have no idea how the issue of ammunition supply is addressed in the code. For the A6M2 cannon ammunition was something of an issue though. According to "Shattered Sword" Torpedo 6, which attacked all by itself just like Torpedo 8, was able to survive the onslaught of the Japanese CAP for a much longer time because most of the Japanese fighters had severely depleted their cannon ammo in the slaughter of Torpedo 8. Even against the TBD the 7.7s were pratically ineffective.
Playing with the range of A2A weaponry as is suggested may prove to be a good way to address the heavy losses in large A2A combats. I might suggest though that the .50 cal and 20mm be given a range of 2 rather than one. It seems to me that both weapons had an effect in A2A that was along the line of an order of magnitude greater than the .30 cal/7.7mm. This of course will render the Nate totally useless along with a couple of varieties of early Allied fighters (as if they aren't already). If ammo supply is somehow worked into the sequence of A2A if would also tend to make the A6M2 less effective on CAP. (Without meaningful fighter direction KBs CAP was not and could not be as omnipotent as WitP allows). Let's pretend for a second that as each wave of Allied planes arrives an increasing number of whatever percentage CAP the Japanese Player has essentially becomes Nates due to ammo depletion. That might cure the uberCAP problem.

Mostly just musing.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:19:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


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



"Yes we are playing with PDU’s on and he has been converting all of his air groups to Tony’s across the board."

This brings up another point regarding my view that there free supply at every resource centre is a major culprit to screwing up the game overall. Many say that the GLOBAL SUPPLY LEVELS are OK and that really, the issue is more just the free supply, lack of port daily operations limits and resultant breakneck speed of game. I am starting to think that global supply is an issue as well because of these very things.

For the Allies, because there are no ops limits at ports, I believe that available daily supply at the supply centres is going to have to be reduced as a counter. In my game, despite running over 100 convoys, the supply at these centres is barely dented. It is only March 42 and I've only just received the first Liberty ship. The massive numbers of merchants, no withdrawl requirement for merchants, no civilian need for merchants, and no ops limits at ports is going to highlight this problem further in the near future. TOO MUCH SUPPLY.

For the Japanese, as I've said before, the supply generated at the resource centres really mucks up the already under utilized merchant marine as supplies do not need to be shipped from the home islands. But we are seeing Japanese production being geared up to the maximum so that aircraft production is way off (Japan actually can outproduce the Allies! as has been shown in the AARs) yet, total supply in the Japanese coffers steadily increases. When comments like (these by Mogami I believe) "I leave hundreds of AKs in Port Arthur to make up for the supply model", or , "I promise not to produce Tonies until late 42 and to restrict the usage" become necessary, perhaps there is TOO MUCH SUPPLY.



treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:45:08 AM)

Has anyone tweaked the dud rate on any of the A2A guns to see what impact that has?



tigercub -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:48:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

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

your not going to get much usefull help form them, i made a mod to the game spent one year doing it and its still going, works a lot better than there mess.They have done a lot of work on this game thanks to the makers but it is still in very poor shape! for a war game of its type there is none better!



treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:00:59 AM)

Does anyone know how operational losses are handled? Are thay dependent on any of the planes ratings ....such as durability?



KDonovan -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:03:43 AM)

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!

Why is 90% CAP better than 100%.....??



treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:05:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!

Why is 90% CAP better than 100%.....??


100%CAP is LRCAP and isn't used to defend the units base.



TheElf -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 8:20:58 AM)

I agree with Joe Wilkerson. I think we all agree that smaller engagements are fine, large ones aren't. I have regular encounters in China and even in the S/SW Pacific where only one, two, or even three aircraft are shot down. Total. I also see my P-38s have a bad every now and again vs. Tonys and even A6M2s.

The difference is I try not to get into the typical WitP player's "keeping up with the Joneses" rut. I'm beginning to believe the cold war-style arms race in the sky's of WITP and human nature are really the culprits of the whacked A2A model. What I mean by this is players often see an A2A battle where they didn't get the upper hand and think; "Hmmm... next time I'll get him, I'll just send more aircraft..." the next turn the disappointed opponent thinks; "hmmmm...ok I see how it is, let's see him beat THIS..." and the Numerical advantage race is on.

The people I see posting the "This air model is broken!" threads tend to have retardedly large air battles where the already weak A2A system sees what the "bad man" is doing, puts on it's safety helmet, and proceeds to lick the inside window of the short bus in hopes the "bad man" will stop....

Yes, the system is weak. Yes it needs to be "fixed". Yes, there are too many 4E bombers. Yes it's too easy to close an airfield. Yes, the KB's CAP is impenetrable. Yes, large air battle result in lopsided results, BUT....

I've said it once. I've said it 100 times:

"Garbage in = Garbage out"
"Ahistorical use = Ahistorical results"

Jim D Burns, I am not claiming you are one of these people. I see your results and I see a bad ahistorical result. It sounds to me like PDUs are having there way with you and your opponent is not playing responsibly with them. Though I could be wrong.

For all players:
Player discipline, a working knowledge of WWII air combat history, and the internal 8u!!$#it filter should precede any turn. If you stick to the realm of combat in the Pacific reality, and play intelligently rather than belligerently you'll find the results more palatable.

Here are some hints:
1. Don't put more aircraft at a field than it can handle

2. Don't mass every level bomber you have against one target. Some LBs were designed for a particualr mission. Use that LB for its historical mission. ex. Leave Beauforts on naval attack and B-26's on Ground or airfield attack

3. Keep a mix of aircraft types at a field

4. Never base more than one B-17 group at a given field and only target them in groups size raids.

5. With PDUs on Allies 2E LB should be limited to 2E upgrades. Same for 1E bombers.

6. Cover all your bases. Avoid stacking EVERYTHING in one place. Spread'em out.

7. Rest your air units. Don't be in such a hurry to wipe out the enemy. Divide large fighter units and give them different missions. Keep an eye on morale and rotate units back to rear area fields to recuperate morale. also train the replacement pilots for a couple days before hurling them back to the front.

8. limit heavy bomber units to flying every other day in realistic numbers.


Back in the day when RTS(real time strategy) games where en vogue, the big complaint was the "tank rush". I'm sure everyone here has played some kind of RTS, particularly Command & Conquer. For anyone who doesn;t know what the "tank rush" is, it was when a player built and built tanks and tanks, and MORE tanks. At some point when he thought he had enough, he clicked and dragged the "get all box" around them and then clicked on his opponents base. The result? A dimwitted cluster f--- of a plan to destroy the opponents productions facilities and such all at once and win the match. Wow. That's great. Lots of fun, and not probably the way the game designers imagined the game would be played.

I'll argue here that there has yet to be a game designed that can design human natures will to defy the rules out of it. There is always a loop hole, a cheat, a unimaginative tactic usually involving massing one thing or another in unimagined numbers and rolling over everything. Thus the state of the A2A model in WitP today....



Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 10:16:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irishman

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!



You miss-read my meaning. CAP was set to 60%, but the raid rolled a 100% intercept. In other words we detected the incoming raid and all planes made it into the air. Fatigue was at zero and morale was in high 70's for all groups.

Jim



Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 10:27:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

So, excuse me for being too harsh, but you did two stupid things - didn't upgrade crap Mohawks to something better, and didn't carpet bomb Tony base - and you complain when you get clobbered?

I think this is yet another case of player not being a good player/strategist, or thinking he's "just being fair", and turning his anger on the system when things go bad.



Had you bothered to read and actually comprehend what I wrote you dimwit, you’d realize 250 other (better) fighters had already been destroyed to virtually no loss to the Tony’s in just a weeks time. But true to your simple minded base ignorant self you insult my intelligence and play ability for reasons that elude me.

The allies lack Japans unlimited production abilities and have to contend with empty aircraft pools for all of 1942 and most of 1943. I realize you have very little experience playing as the allies, but trust me had there been better airframes to use the Mohawks would be upgraded. But in fact they are one of my better airframes left with any kind of reserves in the pool at all.

So in conclusion I do not excuse your rude comments and ask that you refrain from further discourse with me as it appears you really have nothing constructive to add.

Jim



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.875