RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT!

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

Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 10:39:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf 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. You are partially correct. I have refrained from non-historical use of PDU's up to this point and my opponent has not. I have recently informed him that I intend to change things as a result, but nothing changes the fact that the air battle I posted was too bloody and far too one sided. Japan should have taken some losses no matter and no way 100% of the defenders should have been destroyed in A2A. I think part of the reason that the air battle in question went so badly is because of zero fatigue and high morale. Allow your units to reach these levels of readiness and they stay and die to the last man. So your argument that less use is better will probably just lead to bloodier engagements. A2A needs to be toned way down whether you are playing with PDU's or not. Jim

Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 10:42:14 AM)
I wonder if anyone is reading this who can make the decision to have this fixed?

Mr.Frag -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 11:03:40 AM)
quote: I wonder if anyone is reading this who can make the decision to have this fixed? What exactly would you like done Ron? Problem: Players use aircraft in quatities never seen in WW II Solution: Forbid players from playing the way they want It's human nature to stockpile and throw it all in at once. You can't fix human nature with code. There are tons of restrictions in the code but they all fail because people just keep increasing the numbers until the restrictions are meaningless.

Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 11:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Problem: Players use aircraft in quatities never seen in WW II Not true, Japan did throw 500 planes at the US in the Turkey shoot and there were 900 planes on the US side, so your argument is false. Large numbers of planes were used, it's the results the game produces when that happens that we have a problem with. The Turkey shoot was only a turkey shoot because the Japanese sent lots of small raids against the US instead of one large one. Had they sent all 500 planes at once I doubt history would be calling it a turkey shoot. Jim

dtravel -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 11:13:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns The Turkey shoot was only a turkey shoot because the Japanese sent lots of small raids against the US instead of one large one. Had they sent all 500 planes at once I doubt history would be calling it a turkey shoot. The phrase "a furball to choke a sabertooth" comes to mind....

Mr.Frag -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 11:20:49 AM)
quote: The Turkey shoot was only a turkey shoot because the Japanese sent lots of small raids against the US instead of one large one. Had they sent all 500 planes at once I doubt history would be calling it a turkey shoot. Correct ... and this goes back to the ability to launch that number of aircraft in one group simply didn't exist. This is not England with 100+ airfields all launching aircraft at once against a target. Midway is a great example that it takes time to arm and refuel and launch aircraft. Even with multiple CV's (airfields), there is a FINITE rate that aircraft can be launched and recovered. You can't exceed this rate no matter how many aircraft you have parked there. The current model doesn't impose this type of control because it looks abstractly at a day of air activity.

castor troy -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 11:56:48 AM)
Why are people complaining about the Jap ability to produce "unlimited" planes? When playing Allied I just wish that my opponent builds thousands of planes and sends them towards me! Why? Because he hasn´t trained pilots for them and they´re only training for my fighters. And if he trains his pilots, which takes 3 months to make them competitive (I know that´s toooo fast), then he has enough planes anyway, without trippling his production. And not to think about the huge ammount of supply to increase the production and then the spent HI points for ac-production. This way he will spend all his HI points and is in real trouble when strategic bombing begins as he hasn´t 1 million HI points in reserve.

castor troy -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 11:57:06 AM)
ups, sorry

el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 3:36:54 PM)
quote: I have no idea how the issue of ammunition supply is addressed in the code. Regretfully, in ancient history, Matrix handled this well - and WE the PLAYERS messed it up!!! Yep - back in the UV days we complained about fighters NOT being effective enough - and Matrix listened to us - and they took OUT the code - so ever since fighters (and bombers and everything with guns) can shoot without limits. Too bad for us! [I say us without implying I wanted this change - those who opposed it were drowned out by numbers - and Matrix listened to its users in numbers. I only say us because that is how a group works - we all suffer when we get it wrong as a group - even the minority who didn't agree.] Anyway, this is a case where the fix may be easy - it should be easy to re hook up that code.

el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 3:48:05 PM)
quote: 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. IF you are trying to SIMULATE combat, you must conduct operations as you think really would have been done. You NEVER put all your eggs in one basket (assuming you have lots of eggs). You have reasons to put planes in every area - not just one - and you would not be running 600 planes on a strike when the norm was 40-80. A big battle in the Pacific was 300 or 400 planes - exceptions being very rare. WITP/UV seems to work better with smaller engagements - and there is a report that 50 is the limit the model can handle properly. While I think we ought to do what we can to improve the game in every technical sense - including modify the code if we can get it done - I also agree with Elf - don't play unrealistically and then complain it does not work right!

el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 3:52:34 PM)
quote: Japans unlimited production abilities Boy are you confused. Japan has severely limited production abilities. In fact, Western people almost are unable to believe real Japanese production rates! Over time Japan did a better job than the other Axis allies at increasing aircraft production - in the end it actually produced MORE planes than it could efficiently use (because of lack of fuel, munitions and aircrew). But that is a long time coming, and by then, Japan is hopelessly outclassed and overwhelmed by Allied numbers. Also, Japan's production can be entirely shut down by aggressive Allied play - but Allied production is substantially going to happen - period. You can hurt a little of it - but not most.

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 3:52:42 PM)
quote: While I think we ought to do what we can to improve the game in every technical sense - including modify the code if we can get it done - I also agree with Elf - don't play unrealistically and then complain it does not work right! Hence part of the "problem" with the game is that it is not "simulating" well the same stresses faced by the IRL commaders....ie pilot fatigue, logistics constraints, operational losses, launch rates and the plethora of other factors. If players faced these same concerns then perhaps they would play more realistically.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:06:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns 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. I have enough experience playing as Allies. Bad player will suck every time. And will oftenly resort to insults when someone points out the obvious - that he is a bad player blaming the game (which happens every other day on the board). O.

el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:06:18 PM)
quote: Not true, Japan did throw 500 planes at the US in the Turkey shoot and there were 900 planes on the US side, so your argument is false. Large numbers of planes were used, it's the results the game produces when that happens that we have a problem with. The Turkey shoot was only a turkey shoot because the Japanese sent lots of small raids against the US instead of one large one. Had they sent all 500 planes at once I doubt history would be calling it a turkey shoot. Because the Turkey Shoot is the biggest Navy air combat in history - and because we suffered an operational defeat - (it was an overwhelming tactical victory IN SPITE of that operational defeat) - we study it a lot. It is fair to say you are about 90% confused about what happened. Our commander THOUGHT he understood the Japanese situation, and the Japanese commander DID understand our situation. Hard to believe as it may be, the Japanese managed to get nine carriers UNDETECTED into strike range of our forces, and to launch a full strike. It was a properly organized strike which, at other times, even against us, would have inflicted severe damage. But several things went wrong for the Japanese. First of these was technical surprise - they were unable to compete with a new US Navy fighter plane. This was exaserbated by effective changes in organizing air defense. It had become cost prohibitive for ANY combination of aircraft to attack our ships in any conventional sense - even WE could not do it had somehow we needed to face a similar opponent. This organization was so well achieved that even the leakers which did penetrate the fighters were generally destroyed by the AAA defenses - with what - one exception? It does not matter what the Japanese had done formation wise - we were literally listening to the air controller (who was in the air and we let him live too) and responding to his tactical decisions. No possible combination would have mattered materially to the outcome. In 1945 the Japanese went over to "dribble attacks" and these WORKED - because we were NOT well organized to deal with such things. So your criticism is backwards - major strikes were going to be intercepted and cut up - period. We should really be ashamed of the Turkey Shoot - not because we lost - and not because we shot down so many planes - but because we were operationally outmaneuvered. No really competent commander should have allowed the enemy to achieve such a position - the risk of a success were too great as far as we knew. We should have had much better reconnaissance given our commitment of vulnerable and slow amphib forces to operations in the area. Serious professional analysis does not gloat over tactical success in the context of gross operational errors. We study this battle in order to learn how to get everything right - starting with insuring it is US who achieve launch position undetected by the enemy.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 4:46:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: I wonder if anyone is reading this who can make the decision to have this fixed? What exactly would you like done Ron? Problem: Players use aircraft in quatities never seen in WW II (Whose fault is that? Design decision: verdict...fixable by reducing supply to reign in Japanese fantasy economy and change Allied replacements/starting pools in editor.) Solution: Forbid players from playing the way they want. It's human nature to stockpile and throw it all in at once. You can't fix human nature with code. (Exactly! Many players treat everything like a toy and have to game the system. But this can be addressed... Fischer Price the darn thing with limitations like stacking limits so that Midway can't be turned into SAC HQ by the tiny tots!) There are tons of restrictions in the code but they all fail because people just keep increasing the numbers until the restrictions are meaningless. They would not be able to if the restrictions were well thought out and applied. Ever think the restrictions are not sufficient? All these problems stem from MAJOR design oversights, not minor ones. If the levels of supply were reduced to make wholesale gearing up of Japanese economy more "in tune with reality", stacking limits were assigned to atoll bases and applied to engines as opposed to airframes, AV support applied one per engine and not airframe, there was no +250 AV windfall (at AV support of 250 there is no limit to number of aircraft servicable!), perhaps we would be on to something. "What exactly would you like done Ron?" As I've suggested previously... A) Sever the supply from resources dynamic so the modders can fiddle with it and find the sweet spot. This should be easy enough and will please everyone from those who think no change is necessary (carry on then and stick to stock games[:)]) to those who do (CHS and others will mod this until the system feels right and anyone can then play a non stock version as well. B) Deal with the CAP mechanics. For a few years now I've been suggesting strongly that CAP mechanics are a problem and that CAP is UBER but was told I was making it up. Now, I don't know of anyone who thinks CAP is OK given that everyone uses the phrase UBER CAP and there is a mod out there designed specifically to address this previously ficticious UBER CAP issue I was raising. There are a number of things which contribute to this (unlimited ammo, durability, weapons effectiveness, no energency landings for LBA, suicidal tendencies of high morale pilots, no mechanism for disengaging due to odds etc, some of which are adequately dealt with through the editor and some which only code changes can address), but the basic design mechanics are the main culprit. We have any number of reasons why strikes are penalized, from unwarranted strike bonuses for the Japanese to requiring strikes to split for attacks on multiple targets before CAP resolution instead of after. We also have no restrictions on CAP, either design or historically warranted such as fighter direction bonuses for Allies to counterbalance the issue. My suggestions again for issues not editor friendly... -Have CAP phase come before the strikes split for multiple targets (ie currently, if a squadron targets a hex with multiple LCUs, many times this squadron will attack more than one LCU. Problem: the split comes before CAP resolution so each split has to run the CAP (which does not have to split to engage these multiple strike elements...an unfair mechanics driven advantage) Solution: have CAP phase occur before the strike split. -Seeing as we have a strike coordination penalty for Allies and a bonus for Japanese (historically unwarranted vs naval targets mind you), and, since this was historically warranted, add a CAP bonus due to fighter direction improvements for Allies (have this increase over time due to technical improvements and operational prowess) and a CAP penalty for Japan due to lack of fighter direction short of visual sighting and pickets...add an AA penalty to Japanese Air Combat TFs to boot to simulate that the ships were spread out to assist in early warning and did contribute to AA defences on par with Allied Air Combat TFs) - Make CAP less exact in terms of numbers. a 60 mile hex should not guarantee that whatever number of aircraft is airborne will be the same number of aircraft which attack strikes. Randomize this so that a variable percentage of CAP may intercept. C) Add ammo capacity to aircraft (MGs and Cannon) D) Have stacking limits assigned to atoll bases and applied to engines as opposed to airframes. E) AV support applied one per engine and not airframe and remove the +250 AV windfall (at AV support of 250 there is no limit to number of aircraft servicable!)

Mr.Frag -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:01:02 PM)
Ron, you are in the wrong thread here ... You complain about Supply and UBER CAP ... the poster of this thread is complaining that his cap got decimated, not shooting down a single plane... I know threads tend to blur, but come on now ... Not a single one of your points would make any difference to what happened here. I am not trying to pick on you, but this is why these threads never end up getting anywhere, a whole bunch of side issues get injected and the original issue gets completely hidden by all those piling on with unrelated stuff. Original complaint: Slight differences in Aircraft stats make for extreme differences in results. air model needs to be less 100% to any one side due to stat differences.

moses -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:04:02 PM)
quote: Problem: Players use aircraft in quatities never seen in WW II Solution: Forbid players from playing the way they want The problem statement is correct. Solution: Provide correct replacement rates . ALL the problems with PDU are directly caused by replacement rates which are non-historical. The large air combat problem is not completly caused by non-historical replacement rates. However the number of such combats is directly related to the greater than historical number of aircraft available to both sides. This is the most obvious and simple fix that could be made. Debating tweaks to the air combat model is really a waste of time as long as these rates remain as is. Its as if each side was given 10 extra carriers and we were debating rules and code changes to make it right.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Ron, you are in the wrong thread here ... You complain about Supply and UBER CAP ... the poster of this thread is complaining that his cap got decimated, not shooting down a single plane... I know threads tend to blur, but come on now ... Not a single one of your points would make any difference to what happened here. I am not trying to pick on you, but this is why these threads never end up getting anywhere, a whole bunch of side issues get injected and the original issue gets completely hidden by all those piling on with unrelated stuff. Original complaint: Slight differences in Aircraft stats make for extreme differences in results. air model needs to be less 100% to any one side due to stat differences. Incorrect, one side has UBER CAP, one side has escorts. UBER CAP is maximum CAP available vs incoming strikes plus a host of minor issues. The fact that the UBER CAP was made up of obsolete planes and got the worst of the exchange does not change the issue. If there was a variable to CAP totals available to engage, the 48 Mohawks may not have all been able to be butchered. Had there been some way for combat odds to effect the engage/break off chance instead of simply morale (which leads to suicidal behavior), the reulsts would be less bloody, if the target was multiple LCUs the results would be different as well as each strike split would be hit by the 48 Mohawks in succession, if there was a stacking limit the number of planes on mission would be reduced, if there were AV changes as above the numbers of planes again would be less, if supply was dealt with as above the number of planes would be less. Shall I go on?

mc3744 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:27:32 PM)
I'm getting into this late, but I'd like to add my 2cents on some of the previous posts. Most of you already know that I'm an Allied fanboy. [:)] It seems we all agree (for different reasons) on the fact the WitP is not able to handle big air combats. The question is now: why? And how could we fix it? Some are focusing on the combat system, some on the mechanics that allow huge air combat to take place. IMHO it is reasonable to look at it both ways, not just at one or at the other. For sure the C&C effect is a factor that must be considered. I've always complained in my game vs. GH that the FCD (Force concentration Doctrine) ruins the game. The more I play WitP the more I think so. Hell, I don't even like it now that I have the upper hand! [:D] The best games I have running are the ones with airfiled stacking limits, 2E selfimposed upgrade limits and where, just by game style, we avoid FCD. So I tend to agree with Ron on the fact that to fix this commonly agreed upon problem, looking at its roots seems to make sense. I would however like to underline one point. WitP is a game, it has limits (every game has). There are gameplay styles and there are house rules. I think that it makes no sense to hope for a 'perfect' game. WitP is still the best I played so far. When gameplay styles don't match (like in Jim's situation) you bring house rules in or you change opponent. I DO NOT intend to offend anyone, but I believe Oleg had a point, albeit harshly expressed. [;)] By late '42 a good Allied player should always have air supremacy over Burma and parts of China. If it did not happen it is not because of the game mechanics (as wrong as we all agree they are), at least not only. I've played lots of games (with and without PDU) and not once I've seen the Japs holding air superiority over Burma in the second part of '42. Do I mean that Jim is a bad player? No, because I don't know him. I simply mean that - from his post, and his post only - it seems he may have made some mistakes in that specific match. Hence while I totally share his vision on how the battle should have historically been I also believe that he made some serious mistakes game-wise. If you know WitP you don't put 50 Mohawk IV vs. Tony's (not even 20), you just don't because you know that you don't stand a chance. If you have nothing better you retreat. [8\|] Bottom line, with a good mixture of house rules and self constraint WitP is a great GAME to PLAY. Keep in mind that it is still a game, knowing its mechanics helps more than knowing history. [;)]

castor troy -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:38:25 PM)
If there aren´t hundreds of 4E bombers based in India I can´t see how an Allied player would have air superiority in late 42 over Burma against all those Tony and Tojo daitais with pilots with average exp. of 80 (when PDU is on). And when I see what my Tony and Tojo pilots do with P38 (ask Wolfpack[:D], sorry) then even 4E bombers take huge losses. Of course when PDU is off it´s not a problem to achieve Allied air superiority everywhere in Burma and China as Oscars and Nates aren´t competitive. I´m in 2/43 against Wolfpack and I´ve done a good training programm and have many elite daitais and those achieve really good results. Up to now the best plane he could throw against me was the P38 and my elite pilots are doing great (what I didn´t expect). The loss rates are in my favour when he attacks my bases and only slightly in his favour when I´m attacking him. Don´t know if they have any chance when Corsairs show up though. No matter how "good" the Allied player is, with PDU on and a good training programm, the Japanese player has to be real "bad" when he loses air superiority over Burma or China. AGAIN, with PDU on and TRAINING. Without PDU (means nearly no Tojos and Tonies) the Japanese has no chance.

Erik Rutins -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:38:33 PM)
I know the original poster and many of those who have replied have read our earlier comments on this. I don't want to appear unsympathetic to new posters, but I have say that we've commented on this pretty definitively and at length, multiple times. You may not like the answer, but we've certainly made the effort to reply and to see if this could be addressed. You need only look over the detailed patch notes since v1.00 to see how many changes other than bug fixes have been made, based on requests on this forum. In addition, many balance changes and tweaks to the combat systems based on player feedback have been made. We've said several times that the air model does give unrealistic results in very large battles. We spent several weeks looking through the code at various times to see if there was an "easy" change to this. Some changes were made. The upshot is that the designers and programmers feel that changing how the air model to "fix" this will effectively mean redoing the entire air model, which is likely a multi-month proposition given development and testing. The air model works well for historical battles and for battles of small to medium size. Very large battles get very bloody and differences in quality of aircraft and pilots (especially on the order of a 20-30 point difference in experience) tend to exacerbate that. While I may have a different answer for you in the future, right now the only answer I have is it's advised that experienced players take it into account when planning very large air battles. The focus of our future WitP efforts is on fixing bugs rather than addressing areas where there are flaws in the designed models. In a game this size, with the amount of freedom you have, you will eventually find a combination where the model(s) don't perform perfectly. In a game where these units were all represented by counters that were removed with a single good die roll, this wouldn't be a problem for most, but when you see each plane and pilot, results like these do stand out. Please take the increased lethality of very large scale air combat into account in your games. If you want a very bloody air war, large raids and large air combats are the way to go. Otherwise, keep it to more historical numbers and the results will come out better. Regards, - Erik

el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:43:07 PM)
quote: 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 is both right and wrong. It needs to be divided for that reason. The 20 mm is indeed much more deadly in air to air combat - two close orders of magnitude more deadly - which is almost the order of magnitude suggested by Spence. My proposal - cube root of projectile weight - would make it 7 on a scale where .30 cal is 1. But the .50 is quite different. There was intense debate about wether the British or Americans were right in the decision to focus on .30 cal (British) or .50 cal (US). The combat record suggests the British may have been right - but it is so close that it may be more correct to say both were right. Certainly 8 30s were very effective - and quite comparable to 4 50s. [Exact comparison is not possible since the same plane does not come both ways]. In my system, a 50 is rated as effect of 2 while a 30 is effect of 1 - so 8 30s = 4 50s = an aggregate effect of 8 - same same - which duplicates the historical record as good as simulation permits. And ALL these weapons were sighted for similar ranges - generally 500 to 800 yards/meters - with the extreme cases being 850-900 yards/meters. There is even a 40mm cannon with a range of only 150 meters (Japanese for Ki-44II). On the other hand, it appears that 37 mm weapons typically were effective at 1000 yards/meters and sometimes 1100 or even 1200 meters. Thus it might be justifiable to give 37 mm weapons a range of 2 in our system. In that case, the 57 mm probably should be a 3. 40 mm do not exist at present - but would be a case by case thing - the one Japanese case being only a 1 but some others would be 2. A 75mm might be 4 or more, but the accuracy rating would be so low as to be very bad (that is, the rate of fire is very low). In game terms, cannon are not created equal: while all cannon have a lot more punch than any MG, some of them have such low rates of fire the "accuracy" value is terrible (e.g. 4) - while others have comparable rates of fire to MGs so they would have comparable "accuracy" (e.g. 27). Thus it may be some planes with some models of slow firing cannon might be worse off than planes with only MGs. But planes with fast firing cannon are ALWAYS better off than those with only MGs. Range was only a factor for certain weapons - the Ki-45 had a 37 mm to gain a range advantage - and this makes sense given the characteristics of the weapon. Similarly, the Ki-102b had a 57mm to conduct stand off attacks on B-29s - and it was probably more sensible than the 75mm conversions of Ki-67. The Ki-102 had the performance to get the gun into position and the weapon was not so powerful as to destroy the airframe when it was used. It may be this model will work very well for such weapons. The other thing we can do is add some rockets. Soviet planes in particular, and late war planes, have air to air rockets with punch to ranges of 2 or 3.

mc3744 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy No matter how "good" the Allied player is, with PDU on and a good training programm, the Japanese player has to be real "bad" when he loses air superiority over Burma or China. AGAIN, with PDU on and TRAINING. Without PDU (means nearly no Tojos and Tonies) the Japanese has no chance. Then I must be VERY VERY good [:D] [:D] [:D]

castor troy -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mc3744 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy No matter how "good" the Allied player is, with PDU on and a good training programm, the Japanese player has to be real "bad" when he loses air superiority over Burma or China. AGAIN, with PDU on and TRAINING. Without PDU (means nearly no Tojos and Tonies) the Japanese has no chance. Then I must be VERY VERY good [:D] [:D] [:D] You must be Sir! [:)] In my games with PDU on I had NEVER a problem dealing with incoming strikes over Burma in 42, when enough Tonies were around. And it doesn´t take that long to bleed the one or two P38 groups in India. After that 4E bombers come in unescorted and get shot down or are breaking off their attack because of a morale hit. Perhaps we can do a game in the future, as we would be in the same time zone also and most times I need an Allied opponent. [:D]

mc3744 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 5:50:13 PM)
Sounds good to me [:)] You are up for my next match [;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 6:38:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins I know the original poster and many of those who have replied have read our earlier comments on this. I don't want to appear unsympathetic to new posters, but I have say that we've commented on this pretty definitively and at length, multiple times. You may not like the answer, but we've certainly made the effort to reply and to see if this could be addressed. You need only look over the detailed patch notes since v1.00 to see how many changes other than bug fixes have been made, based on requests on this forum. In addition, many balance changes and tweaks to the combat systems based on player feedback have been made. We've said several times that the air model does give unrealistic results in very large battles. We spent several weeks looking through the code at various times to see if there was an "easy" change to this. Some changes were made. The upshot is that the designers and programmers feel that changing how the air model to "fix" this will effectively mean redoing the entire air model, which is likely a multi-month proposition given development and testing. The air model works well for historical battles and for battles of small to medium size. Very large battles get very bloody and differences in quality of aircraft and pilots (especially on the order of a 20-30 point difference in experience) tend to exacerbate that. While I may have a different answer for you in the future, right now the only answer I have is it's advised that experienced players take it into account when planning very large air battles. The focus of our future WitP efforts is on fixing bugs rather than addressing areas where there are flaws in the designed models. In a game this size, with the amount of freedom you have, you will eventually find a combination where the model(s) don't perform perfectly. In a game where these units were all represented by counters that were removed with a single good die roll, this wouldn't be a problem for most, but when you see each plane and pilot, results like these do stand out. Please take the increased lethality of very large scale air combat into account in your games. If you want a very bloody air war, large raids and large air combats are the way to go. Otherwise, keep it to more historical numbers and the results will come out better. Regards, - Erik How difficult would it be to have the strike split (when astrike splits for multiple LCUs) AFTER CAP resolution? I'm no programmer but it seems like a basic and simple fix to some of the problems. Seeing as this effects CV battles and A2A basically impacts just about every combat in the game this is surely a must. How difficult would it be to sever the 1:1.25 supply to resources ratio? Seems like another simple tweak that would go along way to fixing this. Please eveyone for little effort. You guys fixed ASW, why not at least some of the simple things for air to air and supply?

moses -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 6:44:39 PM)
quote: While I may have a different answer for you in the future, Ron- There you go. I think everyones opinion has been heard. They know its out there. What more is to be gained. If one of them think of a simple easy fix I'm sure they'll get around to it one of these days. If not it won't happen. But he's correct that quote: you will eventually find a combination where the model(s) don't perform perfectly If they "fixed" air combat we would just find another combination that "breaks" the game[:D] I'll shut up now. (I'm kidding myself here--I really can't shut up. [:D][:D] I'll settle for staying away from this issue for a little while anyway.[;)])

niceguy2005 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 7:41:34 PM)
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 Tow things I see wrong with this. 1. Such massive air battles were extremely rare, in RL, but are common in WiTP. 2. Your fighters should have failed a morale check during the combat and bugged out. 3. OK your mohawks should have scored a handful of victories, but not many.

Tom Hunter -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 8:00:50 PM)
Raver you must be joking Sneer I am not suprised that the Japanese won, but I don't think that 100 superior Japanese fighters could even find all 48 Mohawks, much less shoot them all down. To prove ADavid B's point here is a battle I just fought with Mogami, the Zeros are all from KB and until now they had not taken any serious combat losses. The Allied fighter groups have XP in the 50s: Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 135 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 12 bombing F4F-4 Wildcat x 59 sweep at different altitudes SBD Dauntless x 15 bombing Kittyhawk I x 30 Sweep as above Beaufort V-IX x 15 bombing P-40E Warhawk x 23 Sweep as above A-24 Dauntless x 16 bombing Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 35 destroyed, 4 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 11 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 59 destroyed SBD Dauntless: 10 destroyed Kittyhawk I: 21 destroyed Beaufort V-IX: 13 destroyed P-40E Warhawk: 22 destroyed A-24 Dauntless: 14 destroyed Some of the F4F4 pilots had ratings in the 70s which did not save them but did allow them to get some kills. I have no complaints about the battle, I saw him coming, set up my attack and took my chances. But it is evidence, along with many other results we have seen in other games, that the air combat system is at least as badly broken as land combat and maybe worse. Moses and I have the same observation about this, in large air battles a significant number of the total planes never actually fight the enemy so they cannot be shot down. But in WitP they do fight and they do get shot down. Jim you need to bring more planes to the party, you will never win with inferior equipment at 1 to 2 odds. You may not win with superior equipment but at least it will be closer. It sucks, but its the way the game is built. My Lunacy AAR is full of training raids and ambushes it took me months to get the upper hand in the CBI. I am not saying I did a perfect job by any strech of the imagination but I did pull it off eventually. Take a look maybe it would be helpful.

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/23/2006 8:16:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mc3744 Sounds good to me [:)] You are up for my next match [;)] My dear friend[:D] Remember that our game still has the old replacement rates for the 4Es...which means you get hundreds of them very early in the game. Now with 15 B-17Es/month it's more difficult to keep the pace you had with me. Anyway there's no way, imho, Japan can hold the air superiority against masses of 200/300 4Es striking at the same time 4 different theatres...even if they come unescorted. No way.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375