RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (Full Version)

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



Message

Sonny -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 6:34:02 PM)

quote:

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.


Way too much detail. Way too much programming/testing needed to make it work for what little it adds to the game. Though it might make a difference if the hexes were 5 or 10 miles I still don't see the need for this much complication.



mogami -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:23:40 PM)

Hi, I really like the pilot experiance over the unit experiance. If you track pilot experiance you always have a few good pilots while if you use unit experiance the entire group is either good or it is bad. The old Pac War used unit experiance and i never liked that aspect of the game compared to WITP. But I think we need the abilty to pull pilots out of groups. And we need them to be able to gain rank.

I think you will find however that if the game allows 300 fighters to be present in a combat the new system will be just as bloody as the old and since late in the war the Allied player is going to have TF with 300 fighters or more your going to always have "Uber" CAP

While the air model in WITP is very bloody, one cause that no amount of progaming can change is it is bloody because players always mass their air assets. No one operates with single 16 aircraft bomb groups attacking a target. (with or without escorts) It's always 200 bombers collected for the mission.



timtom -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:30:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I think you will find however that if the game allows 300 fighters to be present in a combat the new system will be just as bloody as the old and since late in the wat the Allied player is going to have TF with 300 fighters or more your going to always have "Uber" CAP



Then maybe we should work towards a system that makes it more difficult for players to get such numbers into the air, eh?



mogami -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:39:06 PM)

Hi, Since such numbers were in fact used during the war we have to decide what limits were overcome to make this possible. Japan hit Rangoon and several airfields with 200+ bomber raids early in war. The Allies of course used large raids over Japan and the CV TF had massive strikes. The only differance in history compared to WITP is the opposing side did not have 100+ fighters to oppose these strikes with.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:53:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I think you will find however that if the game allows 300 fighters to be present in a combat the new system will be just as bloody as the old and since late in the wat the Allied player is going to have TF with 300 fighters or more your going to always have "Uber" CAP



Then maybe we should work towards a system that makes it more difficult for players to get such numbers into the air, eh?



I think the answer here is that the model needs to break down the larger combats. One of the false impressions the current model gives is that when an A2A engagement occurs, it is all happening at one time and all together. In fact it could be that since it is an "AM PHASE" it is actually a representation of lots of little combats that happened from sunrise to noon. Unfortunately the limitations of the replay animation just mass everything that flew that morning in one Replay and players think "WTF, why is A2A so bloody".

I'd like to see Combat broken down into smaller engagements. Altitude selection could be the determining factor. A delta of 2000 feet or more between units could tell the model "hey I want these groups to apporach the target at a different time and altitude, and perhaps a different target."

Random events such as weather, airborne aborts based on unit morale( a relfection of the mechanical health of a unit) and failed coordination rolls could also come into play.

CAP needs to be fleshed out as well. With ammo limits and a realistic limitations system CAP could be designed so that a player could command 100% CAP with 300 fighters, but in reality if that was done they could only be airborne for a part of the AM phase rather than the whole phase. This would mean gaps at certain crucial points in th ephase, such as when the enemy strike appears on Radar.

There needs to be a rock, scissors, paper design to it so that even setting 300 Fighters to 100% CAP has its limitations. So if the timing works out it works really well and if not it doesn't.

Whatever happens though the A2A combat resolution needs to provide more information as to WHY something happened as that is the root of a lot of A2A frustration.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:55:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since such numbers were in fact used during the war we have to decide what limits were overcome to make this possible. Japan hit Rangoon and several airfields with 200+ bomber raids early in war. The Allies of course used large raids over Japan and the CV TF had massive strikes. The only differance in history compared to WITP is the opposing side did not have 100+ fighters to oppose these strikes with.


Perhaps coordination needs to be tied to an Air HQ and aurfield size. In other words larger Airfields and Air HQs are modifiers for the success of large raid coordination. This would give small size 2 or 3 fields over stacked with LBA a tough time putting together that 100-200 LBA raid.



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 9:32:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I really like the pilot experiance over the unit experiance. If you track pilot experiance you always have a few good pilots while if you use unit experiance the entire group is either good or it is bad. The old Pac War used unit experiance and i never liked that aspect of the game compared to WITP. But I think we need the abilty to pull pilots out of groups. And we need them to be able to gain rank.


Just because someone is a good pilot does not necessarily equate to their ability to command a unit. Likewise someone capable of commanding a battalion may not be capable of commanding a corps....

Or a capable destroyer captain may not be a capable TF commander.



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 9:37:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since such numbers were in fact used during the war we have to decide what limits were overcome to make this possible. Japan hit Rangoon and several airfields with 200+ bomber raids early in war. The Allies of course used large raids over Japan and the CV TF had massive strikes. The only differance in history compared to WITP is the opposing side did not have 100+ fighters to oppose these strikes with.


Perhaps coordination needs to be tied to an Air HQ and aurfield size. In other words larger Airfields and Air HQs are modifiers for the success of large raid coordination. This would give small size 2 or 3 fields over stacked with LBA a tough time putting together that 100-200 LBA raid.


Excellent idea.



witpqs -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 10:20:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.


Yes, which is fine. The problem is that there is information presented in the various combat animations that is absent in the combat reports. All information that a player has access to from turn resolution should be present in the various reports. That way, 1) you're not stuck watching to get the data, 2) you can refer to it instead of sitting with a notebook and the pause key.

Frankly, the same problem exists with the spotting/search phase - some data that just runs by on the screen is not in the reports (like sub 'hit' reports). I know - wrong thread. [:)]



fairplay -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 12:56:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

While the air model in WITP is very bloody, one cause that no amount of progaming can change is it is bloody because players always mass their air assets. No one operates with single 16 aircraft bomb groups attacking a target. (with or without escorts) It's always 200 bombers collected for the mission.


What do you think is an adequate kill rate? [:(]How do you want to measure that?[:(]No critique, I am juts curious.[8|]



spence -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 1:44:06 AM)

Sort of basic and applicable to everything in the game: ONE SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT BE KNOTS AND NAUTICAL MILES, MPH AND STATUTE MILES, KPH AND KMS.



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 1:55:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Sort of basic and applicable to everything in the game: ONE SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT BE KNOTS AND NAUTICAL MILES, MPH AND STATUTE MILES, KPH AND KMS.


Without saying! Although I guess they forgot with the current version.



fairplay -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 2:02:03 AM)

[X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]
That wasn't the answer I was looking for! Let's try it again.
If someone states:" air combat is too bloody" this may be based just on his own opinion. But it could also be based on facts. I am curious how people come to the conclusion that "air combat is too bloody"? [8|] Is it an opinion or do they have a proof? [8|]



timtom -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 2:14:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fairplay

[X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]
That wasn't the answer I was looking for! Let's try it again.
If someone states:" air combat is too bloody" this may be based just on his own opinion. But it could also be based on facts. I am curious how people come to the conclusion that "air combat is too bloody"? [8|] Is it an opinion or do they have a proof? [8|]


[sm=00000506.gif] [sm=00000613.gif]



1EyedJacks -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 2:17:21 AM)

In the upgrade path for Army DBs for Japan, the Ki-51 Sonia and the Ki-30 Ann can upgrade to a Sonia, Ann, or Mary.

The KI-32 Mary can upgrade to a Sonia, Ann, Mary, or Lily, which is a level bomber.

Is there a historical reason why the Sonia and Ann DBs can't upgrade to the Lily?

Is there a reason why the Mary cannot upgrade directly to a Sally or Helen?

I'm guessing that this is for game play and is not historical but, rookie that I am, I could be wrong[:'(].

I'm thinking I'd like to see the upgrade paths modified - maybe free up the options for upgrading squadrons but force the pilots to take an experience hit of 10 to 15 perecent?



Sonny -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 2:33:58 AM)

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 3:09:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.


In general Aircraft need to be less available. Even under the best circumstances availability shouldn;t really ever exceed 60-75%. That is a figure I just pulled out of my @$$ but it would be more accurate than the near 100% availability that is possible under the current system.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 8:14:10 AM)

Forum is slow tonight...



Sonny -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/20/2006 1:37:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.


In general Aircraft need to be less available. Even under the best circumstances availability shouldn;t really ever exceed 60-75%. That is a figure I just pulled out of my @$$ but it would be more accurate than the near 100% availability that is possible under the current system.


Yes, many of the same factors that now apply would still apply as to how many actually get in the air.

There would need to be some formula for dividing up the total aircraft into strikes based on the strike size limitation (which I am sure would cause much debate here). These "packets" would then be engaged by "packets" of CAP with similar constraints.



The Gnome -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 9:01:54 PM)

hi :)

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.



Sonny -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 9:10:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

hi :)

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.


I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.

This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.



The Gnome -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 9:18:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

hi :)

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.


I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.

This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.


Exactly, I always hated to see my bomber squadrons attacking a major combat TF and destroy themselves on fighters and flak, when I really just wanted them to hit convoys.

I like the idea of having this plus the aggressiveness of the commander affect it, it kind of makes it very real to me then. You tell a guy not to press too hard, but that has to be interpretted by another human being. Could lead to some fun results - if there's enough feedback.

"Lt. So and So decides to press the attack"!



The Gnome -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 10:07:52 PM)

Oh one more thing: multiple intercept points. If an attacking formation has to fly by 3 bases with air cover, shouldn't they be allowed to intercept? I'm not sure if this would be a function of LR-CAP versus vanilla CAP. It would then be a benefit to the defender to spread his forces out a little more, and also force the attacker into smaller more numerous raids as an attack on a single base will be less productive.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 11:18:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

hi :)

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.


I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.

This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.


Exactly, I always hated to see my bomber squadrons attacking a major combat TF and destroy themselves on fighters and flak, when I really just wanted them to hit convoys.

I like the idea of having this plus the aggressiveness of the commander affect it, it kind of makes it very real to me then. You tell a guy not to press too hard, but that has to be interpretted by another human being. Could lead to some fun results - if there's enough feedback.

"Lt. So and So decides to press the attack"!


This is great input. I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave. The options were "Direct Fighter", "Bounce Fighter", "Direct Bomber", &"Bounce Bomber". The game was centered around fighters though, and I nevere played the allies, so I don;t know what settings they had available, but nevertheless the principle could be applied to WitP II.

What about telling your B-17Es, B-24Ds, and any 4E LBA in a doctrine page:

Ground/airfield Attack
1) Abort if Escort fails rendevous
2) Continue to target if the AM recon indicated light CAP.
3) Ground abort for Weather in Target area

For Naval attack
4) Select by class of ship what NOT to launch for. Like the current ship screen in WitP, you just deselect what you don't want to look at, be it DD, CA, AUX, BB etc. except for the doctrine page you are deselecting the kind of TF you don't want to attack. Another option would be to code the AI so it dispenses a units A/C appropriate the contact report sent by the Naval Search asset. Or the player selects the Max size of the formationa particular LBA unit launches. Set it to 3, and while set to Naval Attack, for every contact the AI laucnhes on it only send a flight of three(or 6 or 9).

Unfortunately in the real world there were lots of cases where large strikes were launched based on faulty intel or Recon reports. The difference being that in WitP Those large strikes launch with complete knowledge of more appropriate targets(such as that CV TF or SFC TF).

This series of unfortunate events should not be coded out of the AI's decision process, but I agree it could be done better.






jwilkerson -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 11:21:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.


In general Aircraft need to be less available. Even under the best circumstances availability shouldn;t really ever exceed 60-75%. That is a figure I just pulled out of my @$$ but it would be more accurate than the near 100% availability that is possible under the current system.


Absolutely agree ... as a for instance ... I just saw a military channel show on the 8th AF ... it was stated that at one point 49% of the heavy bomber were down for repair. Now this is a number out of context but it is indicative of the point. Even the US 8AF in England with presumably adequate supply, support no malarial zones, etc. Could still see a standing total of damaged aircraft of 49% out of a total of maybe 550 ( if the date of the 49% was late 1943 ... or may much more if after mid-1944 by which time the bomber strength had doubled ). And then obviously, under worse conditions the percentage could be higher. Perhaps, this range of average percents should be by nation, to reflect the sophistication of support equipment, the training of support personnel and even the motivational baseline. But definitely something to add to the list of considerations.




TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 11:26:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Oh one more thing: multiple intercept points. If an attacking formation has to fly by 3 bases with air cover, shouldn't they be allowed to intercept? I'm not sure if this would be a function of LR-CAP versus vanilla CAP. It would then be a benefit to the defender to spread his forces out a little more, and also force the attacker into smaller more numerous raids as an attack on a single base will be less productive.


Another good idea. Perhaps determined by the strength of the CAP at these intermediate enemy bases, Radar, Aggressiveness, Proximity to the path of the attackers. This goes along with the previously mentioned idea of the possibility of Pre-target, Target Area, and Off-Target Interception by the resident CAP. Certainly any Raid that ventures deep into enemy territory should be in peril form Enemy formations NOT only from their Target hex.

Perhaps a routine that assesses the above factors and then assigns a "Random encounter" in the form of CAP from nearby Bases?

Another factor could be that the defending player can set other Airfields to intercept Raids heading for another primary target, such as Rabaul, or PM? The routine could then draw from the CAP at these outlying fields and be on the look out for any raids passing by.



Nikademus -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/21/2006 11:39:37 PM)

quote:

I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave


yes, however the problem with BoB's setup is that the player just has to pick the best tactic and stay with it. There doesn't appear to be any pro or con. I'm currently playing a BTR campaign and the fighters always use bounce tactics. Any choice feature must have pros and cons. Sort of like AA and altitude. You can choose to attack low but there's a potential cost. (or there should be)

However as WitP demonstrates, having "choice" alone doesn't automatically work. Players choose to bomb low and always do because there's no real con.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/22/2006 12:14:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave


yes, however the problem with BoB's setup is that the player just has to pick the best tactic and stay with it. There doesn't appear to be any pro or con. I'm currently playing a BTR campaign and the fighters always use bounce tactics. Any choice feature must have pros and cons. Sort of like AA and altitude. You can choose to attack low but there's a potential cost. (or there should be)

However as WitP demonstrates, having "choice" alone doesn't automatically work. Players choose to bomb low and always do because there's no real con.


One of the assumptions I operate under while brainstorming these things is that they all have their pro's and Con's, in so far as the inner workings of the game. If they don't they should. EVERYTHING has it's pro's and Con's.

In the next iteration I would hope that bombing low would have the same cons that it did in real life.



Nikademus -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/22/2006 12:16:54 AM)

One thing i've learned over time when it comes to features....never assume. [;)]

I'm still trying to figure out what morale does in BTR.....not much from what i've seen



mdiehl -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/22/2006 12:20:17 AM)

Eliminate air group leader ratings entirely.

Can anyone name a single American USAAF, USN, USMC, or Japanese air strike in WW2 that was not flown because the group leader lost their nerve or escort failed to materialize? How often did this happen anyhow?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.84375