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

el cid again -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 1:53:55 PM)
quote: The majority of Jap forces at the beginning of the war were just as green as the forces they were fighting. Actually not. Most historians (correctly) point out that Japan had been at war intermittantly since 1935 - and continuously since 1937. It had fought in several parts of China, Manchuria, Mongolia and Korea. The average naval pilot at the start of hostilities with the USA had thousands of hours of flight time and quite a bit of air combat experience. Another factor was training. This turned out to be a two edged sword - Japanese navy training was TOO GOOD - and it prevented training in the numbers needed (See Saburo Sakai's Samouri). Japanese naval pilots often did not take parachutes - because it was SOP to train to jump from your plane WITHOUT one!!! Yep - if you sprained an ankel you washed out of fighter school. You were expected to know how to jump out (at low altitude of course) and land properly. You also had to spot stars in the daytime - something I found hard to believe until I asked an astronomer - and he taught a whole class to do it in less than a minute! [An enemy plane is as hard to see as a star in the daytime - and if you can learn to see one you can see the other! A real advantage since most victories go to the side that spots first.] Sakai was in a car that went off a cliff - and 4 out of four passengers - student pilots all - JUMPED to safety! We just didn't train to such standards.

Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 2:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB I must be the only regular Allied player and occasional Japanese player who likes PDU. When we started our game PDU’s had just been implemented and like so many others we decided to use the new feature. It wasn’t common knowledge that the system could be so heavily abused until many months (real time) afterwards and by then we were too far in to restart. Personally I will never use PDU’s again, simply because of the abuse factor. I suspect had I started upgrading 2E bombers to 4E bombers months ago, I would have a very different situation. But I’m a stickler for history and I wanted to use those 2E bombers. But I’ve learned my lesson, 4E bombers will appear by the hundreds shortly and I hope to visit some pain on my opponent very soon. With that said though, I still wish there was a way to fix air combat. No matter what all the defenders of the model are saying in this thread, it’s broken because it’s too bloody period. Historically groups were kept in the front lines for months on end and flew missions every day. Only the player who has air superiority can do this currently. The other player is forced to withdraw groups after only 1 or 2 days fighting. Had air units taken those kind of losses historically, even the massive US production would not have been able to keep up with all the air frames falling from the skies. Has anyone tried simply quadrupling durability or something? Anything that can drastically reduce kills would be a good thing in my book. Jim

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 2:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB I must be the only regular Allied player and occasional Japanese player who likes PDU. When we started our game PDU’s had just been implemented and like so many others we decided to use the new feature. It wasn’t common knowledge that the system could be so heavily abused until many months (real time) afterwards and by then we were too far in to restart. Personally I will never use PDU’s again, simply because of the abuse factor. I suspect had I started upgrading 2E bombers to 4E bombers months ago, I would have a very different situation. But I’m a stickler for history and I wanted to use those 2E bombers. But I’ve learned my lesson, 4E bombers will appear by the hundreds shortly and I hope to visit some pain on my opponent very soon. With that said though, I still wish there was a way to fix air combat. No matter what all the defenders of the model are saying in this thread, it’s broken because it’s too bloody period. Historically groups were kept in the front lines for months on end and flew missions every day. Only the player who has air superiority can do this currently. The other player is forced to withdraw groups after only 1 or 2 days fighting. Had air units taken those kind of losses historically, even the massive US production would not have been able to keep up with all the air frames falling from the skies. Has anyone tried simply quadrupling durability or something? Anything that can drastically reduce kills would be a good thing in my book. Jim I'm curious....in your game : How many sorties have been flown? How many planes have been shot down? How many operational losses?

Sardaukar -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 3:25:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Has anyone tried simply quadrupling durability or something? Anything that can drastically reduce kills would be a good thing in my book. Jim You could try NikMod 5.0. Nikademus has made quite considerable changes with durability ans AAA, for example. I've not played it yet myself, so donno how it works, but there are some AARs that you could check.

Jim D Burns -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I'm curious....in your game : How many sorties have been flown? How many planes have been shot down? How many operational losses? Here’s the current turns (9-5-42) intelligence screen. As you can see almost half of Japans air losses are operational, so I’ve destroyed about 1400 through combat ops while he’s destroyed about 3100 of mine through combat ops. A large number of his combat op losses are bombers destroyed on the ground or by flak though, while the majority of my losses (well over 2/3rds) are fighters. The only major combat ships I’ve lost are 3 BB’s, 1 CL and 7 DD’s. The rest are AK’s, AP’s and MSW’s along with about 30-40 PT boats and 18 Subs. Most of the subs were lost to KB’s uber ASW aircraft sweep north of Darwin within one week. We have since implemented a house rule limiting how many planes in a group may be set to ASW and no search aircraft of any kind may be set lower than 6000 feet. This change has made a huge difference in sub survivability. Japan has lost 1 AV, 1 CL, 5 DD’s and 1 APD along with 7 subs all lost to depth charges. This is according to my intelligence so there may be some other non-reported combat vessels lost, but no major fleet actions have occurred other than landing operations by Japan since about February when I sortied a British battleship to bombard Japanese troops southwest of Rangoon and lost it to enemy air attack. Jim [image]local://upfiles/5815/79E9064B905A43018082E1AF1C806F61.jpg[/image]

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:30:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Air combat is fine....it is the LCU combat that needs to be fixed. Air combat is fine? That's a joke, right? [8\|]

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker 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\|] You mean in cage, right? [8\|]

Sneer -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Air combat is fine....it is the LCU combat that needs to be fixed. Air combat is fine? That's a joke, right? [8\|] I think he is serious surface combat fire distribution and LCU cobat is worse than A2A

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:43:26 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. There's the rub. Many players love just that sort of silliness. In fact, if you talk to them they'll swear up and down there's no problem to begin with. quote: 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. Again, you're in the minority. "Tips" are what Russ has to offer. He's chock full of tips. Your feedback is that that doesn't afford you the kind of game you're after. Unfortunately it does afford the kind of game many other players are after. They seem to like it rude and crude. Less luck for you. quote: 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. If "we" all cry out for a fix? (hesaid...lookingaroundtoseewhoelsemightbeinthebuilding)

Przemcio231 -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:48:14 PM)
Ok just runed a test[:)] I opened the Marianas Scenario i stuck the Jap CV's in 3 Different TF's One with Taiho , Shokaku and Zuikaku + a CVE with 27 Zakes on it and the other CV's were distributed into two other TF's and i put the Ageainst US CV's it turned out that 4 US Carrier Group weren't on the Different Hexes 3 were on one and the last one was hex away.... first US strike from the 3 Carrier groups About 80 Hellcats + about 200 Bombers maybe more ageains 130 Zake CAP Resul All Zake's Dead and shot down 25 Hellcats + about 20 bombers but this was done mainly by Flak... Shokaku and CVE crippeled , Taiho and Zuikaku slightly damaged... then my 3 TF's lunched separate strikes ageains US TF alone on the hex... First wave from Zuikaku TF was made of About 80 Zake + 80 Bombers ageainst 68 Hellcats Result : 80 Zakes Dead + abot 65 Bombers the rest didn't scratched a single ship.... the other 2 waves did much worse and the result of all attacks my Planes dead and one bomb hit scored:( My point is that the Zuikaku TF's strike got pilot exp in 70's and 80's and this even didn't help... the CAP is to efficient i think... becous the time Hellcats wasted on trashing my Zake's schuld be used by my bombers to reach the Target[:)]

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:51:59 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. Aircraft replacement rates can be addressed with the editor, at least. It would help immensely if Matrix would throw us a bone and also 1) limit stacking and 2) increase operational loss rates by a whole lot. Not holding my breath, of course, but that's what is called for in this particular case. I wish you'd taken Matrix up on their offer to use you on the development team. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall had that hypothetical materialized. Or maybe just as good, be privy to the private correspondence between you and Ron during that period . . . then make book on which one of you got canned first, and for what lame excuse. [8\|]

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 4:53:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ideologue 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.[>:] Who's running this phantom account? [8\|]

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again 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. The man's point was that 1) there's too much CAP to begin with in many cases and 2) it's entirely too effective, all of it engaging each incoming wave. To assert that CAP eventually gets "tired" by the fourth or fifth or sixth strike hardly argues that the air-combat system makes sense. It patently does not make sense for most (if not all) situations. CAP ought to "parceled out" to bandits, and all fighters on both sides need to be severely limited as to how many combats they're able to engage in, this to broadly simulate the limited quantity of ammo they were loaded with (an incredibly inept omission on Gary's part, which is pretty much proof positive that all he's either interested in doing and/or is capable of doing is to regurgitate old game ideas that never worked right in their original forms, a kind of "old dogs/new tricks" scenario, I suppose).

Feinder -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:11:02 PM)
I'm not sure I'd actually want to increase the ops LOSSES. Ops losses = victory points and dead pilots (which would further hamstring Japan). Somewhere I recall being called and "Allied Fanboy" but... never mind. Anyway. I think maybe increasing Ops DAMAGES might be useful. Ops damages means you can't fly the whole squadron. You're also not losing pilots left and right. If you -do- overstack, you've now got a base full of damaged aircraft, just waiting to get pounded. However, if your opponent does nothing about it, it doesn't covert into VPs for him (or actual losses for you). -F-

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:23:52 PM)
quote: Aircraft replacement rates can be addressed with the editor, at least. It would help immensely if Matrix would throw us a bone and also 1) limit stacking and 2) increase operational loss rates by a whole lot. Not holding my breath, of course, but that's what is called for in this particular case. I wish you'd taken Matrix up on their offer to use you on the development team. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall had that hypothetical materialized. Or maybe just as good, be privy to the private correspondence between you and Ron during that period . . . then make book on which one of you got canned first, and for what lame excuse. Speaking of bones ....change the resource point/supply point ratio when resources and supplies are generated and allow the modders to set daily supply values in Japan. Japan would then still have to ship resources to Japan for HI and then supplies out of Japan.

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf 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" All that that says is that the system is hopleless whacked. And it further begs for a list of house rules as long as your arm. Nothing wrong with your analysis, but in the end it doesn't sound good to me. quote: 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.... Whenever you start using terms like "always" you're likely to be on thin ice--not every time, but the odds are good. So, is it true that no system, is perfect? Yes. Is it true that all wargames have large loopholes in them, to the extent that we find in WitP? I don't think so. That would be to argue that all game designers are of the same stripe, all development processes are identical, etc. Which sounds dubious on its face. In any event, I've played any number of games that were designed better (a lot better) than this one, and I believe that most of the people on this board, if they were truthful with themselves, with that could and would agree.

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:28:07 PM)
quote: I'm not sure I'd actually want to increase the ops LOSSES. Ops losses = victory points and dead pilots (which would further hamstring Japan). Somewhere I recall being called and "Allied Fanboy" but... never mind. Anyway. I think maybe increasing Ops DAMAGES might be useful. Ops damages means you can't fly the whole squadron. You're also not losing pilots left and right. If you -do- overstack, you've now got a base full of damaged aircraft, just waiting to get pounded. However, if your opponent does nothing about it, it doesn't covert into VPs for him (or actual losses for you). -F- IMO when myself and or others suggest increasing OPS Losses we are refering to Destroyed and Damaged. Not just Destroyed.

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder I'm not sure I'd actually want to increase the ops LOSSES. Ops losses = victory points and dead pilots (which would further hamstring Japan). Somewhere I recall being called and "Allied Fanboy" but... never mind. Anyway. I think maybe increasing Ops DAMAGES might be useful. Ops damages means you can't fly the whole squadron. You're also not losing pilots left and right. If you -do- overstack, you've now got a base full of damaged aircraft, just waiting to get pounded. However, if your opponent does nothing about it, it doesn't covert into VPs for him (or actual losses for you). I couldn't care less about VPs. I only care about game play itself. If gamers are so lame as to require VPs then they're beyond hope here. Maybe they could petition Matrix to somehow address the altered VP issue at the same time, though again, that sounds like an utter waste of development resource to me. Anyway, yes, OP damages and outright losses need to be increased by a whole lot. We're talking about machines with sensitive instruments and engines with only so many hours of life, all of which is exacerbated by the climate (hot and humid) these machines operated in. No way Jose does the game even approach accuracy in this area. And so the system continues to wind on too fast all over the place. It's been awhile since I said this, so let's review: There is almost no aspect of this game system that came out of the box correct, or even close to correct. Now we can all chew on that for awhile. An unpopular statement, no doubt, but God's bare truth nevertheless.

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:40:05 PM)
And another bone... Modify basing restrictions from IRC ..> Base Size * 50 cut 25% and > Base Size *100 cut another 25% to >(Base Size) Squared Times 10 cut 25%-50% >(Base Size) Squared Times 15 cut 50%-75% So.... Size 1 = 10, 15 Size 2 = 40, 60 Size 3 = 90, 135 Size 4 =160, 240 Size 5 = 250, 375 Size 6 = 360, 540 Size 7 = 490, 735 Size 8 = 640, 960 Size 9 = 810, 1215 Size 10 = 1000, 1500

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns 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. Well, I've been around here for some time now and that's the first occasion I can recall someone calling Oleg on his neverending bullshit in such a frank and, if you don't mind my saying so, refreshing manner. (He's been called any number of times on his rudeness with regard to the work of others, especially modders, but not for this type of completely misleading feedback.) Except for me, of course. I get into it with this company yes man frequently. Of course that won't change him a jot, but it does keep my tools sharp. [8D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:47:07 PM)
Couldn't agree more John. Over half of all aircraft losses in the Pacific War were non-combat. That's on both sides. On average, about 10% of the aircraft in the theatre were lost to operational causes PER MONTH! The game doesn't begin to reflect this.

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:47:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag 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. You stole my thunder. [:)] I was just about to comment with that precise answer. Another design issue. Bad bad bad. You know, I wish you'd send me an email with your list of things in this game that you personally believe to be "right." I have my own list, and it's a short one, believe me. Yours may or may not run longer. I'd have interest to read it in any event.

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 5:50:34 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 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. Who's "they"? Have you looked at the stock OOBs and replacement rates and such? Does any of that suggest anyone could expect historical play, given the system in place?

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again 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. All well and good and interesting, except you misstate the case when you call the USN intelligence error an "operational defeat." It was nothing of the kind. The "operation" was an overwhelming victory, no matter that Japan managed to get off a series of doomed carrier and land-based strikes. I mean, it's not as if we weren't expecting them to challenge our move, or were caught with our pants down. We cleaned out the Marianas, and made short work of them, too, with no significant losses (in an operational sense--I don't make light of even one one Marine, bluejacket or GI who gave his life).

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker 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!) Thank you.

Feinder -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:16:29 PM)
While it's all very noble for us to say that we don't care about vps, they -are- in intrinsic part of every game. They determine the winner and the loser. While in my own PBEM games, we have agreed to play beyond an auto-victory, vps still hang over your head. I will reitterate again however, the problem with increasing ops DESTROYED, is that it further attrits the Japanese pilot pool. I'm all for as much historical realism as possible. If we can simulate the historical percentage of ops losses, so much the better. But I think that wiping out Japanese pilots in droves due to ops destroyed, will end up being a serious detriment to historical accuracy. -F-

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:21:27 PM)
From what I've seen the code already exists to implement some of the changes suggested.... #1 - Severing Supply from Resources....Not sure how the code is written but I imagine there is something that tells the engine to generate 1 supply per resource...lets add a decimal place and generate .1 supply per resource. Then go back and adjust for any perceived deficit by adding Daily supply allocation to different bases. Of course then all of Matrix's Scenarios would also have to be re-written. #2 - Launch rates - Abstractly handled by the basing limitations. Lets either alter the basing restriction formula or increase the do not fly penalty once basing exceeded. May not affect Carrier Ops however. #3 - Ammo limits - Without adding new code adjusting the weapons system range downward seems to adjust for this as pointed out by Cid and Nik.

treespider -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder While it's all very noble for us to say that we don't care about vps, they -are- in intrinsic part of every game. They determine the winner and the loser. While in my own PBEM games, we have agreed to play beyond an auto-victory, vps still hang over your head. I will reitterate again however, the problem with increasing ops DESTROYED, is that it further attrits the Japanese pilot pool. I'm all for as much historical realism as possible. If we can simulate the historical percentage of ops losses, so much the better. But I think that wiping out Japanese pilots in droves due to ops destroyed, will end up being a serious detriment to historical accuracy. -F- Does anyone know if there is any provision within the code for pilot survivabilty when an Ops loss occured...perhaps the fix is as simple as changing a decimal point or multiplier.

Tristanjohn -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:25:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer quote: ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Air combat is fine....it is the LCU combat that needs to be fixed. Air combat is fine? That's a joke, right? [8\|] I think he is serious surface combat fire distribution and LCU cobat is worse than A2A All three don't work. All three came and remain, in their own distinct ways, broken. How much "worse" than broken is there?

Mr.Frag -> RE: PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT! (1/24/2006 6:29:47 PM)
quote: Another design issue. Soon as I get that design document, we can discuss all my ideas and build them into it. I have tons of ideas, but you seem to not understand my roll. I was put on the team to find and report bugs, not reinvent 2BY3's game. Had they asked for design work, I would have filled that roll, but the general principal is life is that he who pays the bill picks the rules. I do not believe personally that 2BY3 missed the mark as far as you would like to make it seem. The fact that people are still playing to this day pretty much says they were right on the mark. I look at the number of games being posted in the AAR forums and they number in the hundreds. I have hundreds of games (2 bookshelves worth) as I have been playing since back in the "Hunt the Wumpus" days on punch cards. Many of them provided < 48 hours of amusement. Many did not even make that mark. Sometimes people tend to loose sight of the reality of computer games because of their passion. I am not saying there isn't room for lots more and there isn't frustration free gaming (on that point, I don't think I have ever played a game that didn't frustrate me at some level) but at the end of the day, people are having fun. That is the purpose of a game. Certain folks want WitP to be a historical accurate simulation. By it's very nature, it can not be a simulation as that would require a completely different scale and timeframe (perhaps even down to 1 hour turns). These folks will never be happy and I frankly don't loose much sleep over people who think that you can have a historical simulator with input ONLY every 24 hours. It is beyond realistic. It's like saying you want to use one of the advanced aircraft like PMDG's 747-400 in MSFS but you only get to set the flight plan and can not touch the controls until after the aircraft has landed at the other end. I'm not really interested in getting into another forum war of posts with you TJ as it really serves no purpose. You know when my money is ... waiting ... for your design document [sm=terms.gif]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.546875