RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (Full Version)

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

Message

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:34:00 AM)
Also the best Japanese radar doesnt arrive until Jan 44 I think until then they are stuck with sound detectors. Basically 43 will be a Bad year for Japanese fighters actualkly getting better in 44 at least on defence.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:20:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Also the best Japanese radar doesnt arrive until Jan 44 I think until then they are stuck with sound detectors. Basically 43 will be a Bad year for Japanese fighters actualkly getting better in 44 at least on defence. I am a radar technician (originally) and a student of WWII radar technology. This is a complex subject - and one full of misconceptions and no little prejudice. WITP is hard due to severe slot limits for Japan. But approximately the above is wrong, although just what is meant by "best Japanese radar" is not defined. Japanese radar is pretty much an early war development - Japan was a radar pioneer and had research as did all the great powers pre war - but only a little was on land when the war began. I cannot create separate devices for this - so I simply use the naval radar on land - as a compromise. The naval radars are not particularly different - just smaller - so it is not too bad. For air search Japan has only two slots - one I call Type 11/12/13 and one I call Type 22. The former is more or less early warning (if 90 miles is early warning) - the latter really air search/surface search (a type we do not have) or short range air search. [I simulate air search surface search by using Type 21 and 22 together - and in fact both were on many ships]. The first naval radar went to sea in 1942 - in time for (but not at) Midway - and by 1943 all important developments have occurred. So I regard the above statement as essentially incorrect at its heart. Anyway - what matters is the date the radar appears on ships - and case by case this is set to the right date - even for submarines (which I did for CHS as well as RHS at Andrew's request). Land is more tricky - things upgrade too fast - so I did things like make the radar net build by attaching it to mid and late war reinforcement units (mainly base forces).

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:31:41 AM)
Sorry if I wasnt clear the only Air Search radar that the japanese get that I am aware of that are used in Base Forces or on board ships is the type 13 it is the upgrade for Sound Detectors in Japanese Base Forces and arrives in January 44. (Type 22? may also be included for surface ships but I thought that was a surface radar only but I could be wrong in which case the IJN on board ships has better radar than any Japanese Base) It has a range of 100miles and has a 45 Penetration and is a significant upgrade from the Sound Detectors which had range 25miles. The allies from Jan 43 get the CPS - 1 that has a detection range of 400 miles and a penetration of 80 this applies to all USN Carriers and all US Base Forces get at least two of this device. As far as I am aware until 1/44 NO Japanese Base Force has an air search radar. Some surface ships may have or carriers and it may be better I am not an expert on Japanese systems. In addition I only play stock so it may different in a mod.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:35:30 AM)
Just checked Type 22 and type 23 japanese radars have range of 20 and 34 miles respectively so as I said best japanese radar arrives 1/44 and is the type 13 albeit it has lower penetration than the two navy systems. It is also the only radar able to be deployed in base Forces

wdolson -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:35:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again And for the record - I don't think the "free on map training cheat" is a cheat at all. What I DO see as a problem is the rate at which training increases ratings: it is way too fast for average cases. Yet in real life - we can do it even faster than code does - with focused effort. The main thing it takes to get better pilots is priority from senior staff - resources of various kinds - and if that is present - you really do get better pilots. I agree with you. In the real war, Japan did not build up their pilot training program and suffered from it. That does not mean they couldn't have developed a pilot training program. Before 12/7/41, they were sending military observers around to other countries collecting intelligence and ideas. If Japan had put a high value on pilot training, they could have observed the RAF's system and copied it. In their arrogance, they believed their training system was as good, or even superior to any of their potential opponents, so they decided not to make any changes until it was too late. If a Japanese player in the game decides to set up a training program, they are simply doing something that was possible for Japan to do, though they chose not to do it. I don't call that a cheat. To me, a cheat is taking advantage of something in the game engine that would not be historically possible. Bill

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:37:09 AM)
Just checked even IJNAF Base Forces are on the Sound Detecto - Type 13 path so the earliest they get Radar is 1/44

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:47:04 AM)
I am of course as always refering to stock as I am unaware of whats been doen to CHS or RHS and my point is that if I have understood Mike and Joe correctly there are no 'hidden' or hard coded air to air bonuses, penalties or any other type of restricted influence on air combat. (except zero bonus) Its all in game aircraft stats, pilot xp etc etc In answer to the in game question why do allies seem to get better in in the air and Japanese get worse 43 my suggested answer is the allied radar upgrade and lack of upgrade on the Japanese side lead to better bounce bonuses for allied aircraft, improved CAP numbers and position etc etc tied to the improved detection level provided by lots of top notch radars being deployed. It may be wrong but it seems plausible especially as most A2A combat does tend to occur within 400 miles of Allied bases in 43 except for late 43 P38J escorted raids Andy

Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 1:58:54 AM)
"I agree with you. In the real war, Japan did not build up their pilot training program and suffered from it. That does not mean they couldn't have developed a pilot training program. Before 12/7/41, they were sending military observers around to other countries collecting intelligence and ideas. If Japan had put a high value on pilot training, they could have observed the RAF's system and copied it. In their arrogance, they believed their training system was as good, or even superior to any of their potential opponents, so they decided not to make any changes until it was too late. If a Japanese player in the game decides to set up a training program, they are simply doing something that was possible for Japan to do, though they chose not to do it. I don't call that a cheat. To me, a cheat is taking advantage of something in the game engine that would not be historically possible. Bill " The "cheat" is not the idea of Japanese "on map training", it's the way the game executes it. Fighter Pilots can work their way up to 80-90 straffing Chinese peasants (which might make them better at "ground support", but won't do a thing for their "air-to-air" primary skills). Bombers can do the same running little "transport shuttles". What happens in the game is a joke, and can be abused beyond all reccognition. If the Japanese wanted to engage in a real expanded "Pilot Training Program" to increase the number of "trained pilots" recieved, they would have had to increase trainer production and pull a number of their skilled pre-war pilots back to use as instructors. As the IJN didn't even have enough trained pilots to man the A/C it had available on Dec. 7th, this is unlikely. Japan's whole "war strategy" (such as it was) was based around the idea of a short war..., even they knew they didn't have the economic strength for a long one.

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 3:34:42 AM)
Just a few quick "test" runs with Japanese baseforces outfitted with US radars shows a marked improvement in the number of aircraft intercepting.

wdolson -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 3:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl The "cheat" is not the idea of Japanese "on map training", it's the way the game executes it. Fighter Pilots can work their way up to 80-90 straffing Chinese peasants (which might make them better at "ground support", but won't do a thing for their "air-to-air" primary skills). Bombers can do the same running little "transport shuttles". What happens in the game is a joke, and can be abused beyond all reccognition. If the Japanese wanted to engage in a real expanded "Pilot Training Program" to increase the number of "trained pilots" recieved, they would have had to increase trainer production and pull a number of their skilled pre-war pilots back to use as instructors. As the IJN didn't even have enough trained pilots to man the A/C it had available on Dec. 7th, this is unlikely. Japan's whole "war strategy" (such as it was) was based around the idea of a short war..., even they knew they didn't have the economic strength for a long one. True, there are innacuracies. It should be more difficult to build up your pilot skill to 80+ doing tasks that don't directly apply to combat. Ultimately, this game is attempting to model something massively complex. I don't believe any computer game has tried to simulate anything on this scale down to this detail before. I know Pacific War and some other earlier engines attempted some of this. The engine has limits. The training model could probably be tweaked a bit, but it would take some heavy rework of the engine to make it work completely realistically. As far as including training aircraft in the game, I believe the pilot pool represents pilots who have been through basic and advanced training. When you are drawing low experience pilots, that represents pilots who have been through an abreivated basic training program and didn't learn as much as those who had been through the complete program. The next step after a pilot comes out of the replacement pool would be transition training in obsolete versions of aircraft they will be flying in combat. In the US, the old Brewster Buffalos, P-39s, and other aircraft obsolete at the beginning of the war were retained for training. In Canada, the Canadians were building large numbers of Hurricanes to train RAF pilots. I don't see it as unrealistic for a Japanese in game training program to be using Nates and Claudes. In the real war, many of these were scrapped for their materials. Still, quite a few remained to be used up as Kamikazes at the end. The USN fighter pilots reported engaging a wide range of obsolete Japanese planes attempting to get through to the carriers. Bill

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 6:49:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Sorry if I wasnt clear the only Air Search radar that the japanese get that I am aware of that are used in Base Forces or on board ships is the type 13 it is the upgrade for Sound Detectors in Japanese Base Forces and arrives in January 44. (Type 22? may also be included for surface ships but I thought that was a surface radar only but I could be wrong in which case the IJN on board ships has better radar than any Japanese Base) REPLY: The Type 11/12/13 Radar of RHS = Type 13 of CHS - just we are more honest and admit the 13 is a variation of the 11 - and so the date is August 1942. It is the main air search radar - but because of a technical trick (or bug) I can put a couple of these out on land at game start - corresponding to a Japanese "Chain Home" like system. The Type 21 is classified both ways - and there is even a switch to change it in CHS that probably works in all mods. It SHOULD BE a air search - although it does both functions - IF NOT it won't allow AA to shoot or air ops to be coordinated. Type 22 is classified as surface search. By putting 21 and 22 on a ship you get a true air search surface search radar set. I wrote wrong about Type 22 above - should have said Type 21. It has a range of 100miles and has a 45 Penetration and is a significant upgrade from the Sound Detectors which had range 25miles. REPLY: The main problem with this is that the range should be 90 miles. Sound detectors are much more difficult to rate. What is the "range" of a sound detector? It all depends! But it might be 60 miles in ideal conditions, and it might be worthless. Penetration should be 500 - not 45. The allies from Jan 43 get the CPS - 1 that has a detection range of 400 miles and a penetration of 80 this applies to all USN Carriers and all US Base Forces get at least two of this device. REPLY: I have SC in 4112 (24 miles); SG in 4205 (28 miles); SJ in 4210 (25 miles); CXAM in 4112 (150 miles); SCR270 in 4207 (250 miles) and CPS1 in 4307 (400 miles). These sets all represent a whole family of machines - but these are reasonable approximations. As far as I am aware until 1/44 NO Japanese Base Force has an air search radar. REPLY: Whereas in fact Japanese air bases had Air Search Radar BEFORE the war began - in major points in Japan itself. Some surface ships may have or carriers and it may be better I am not an expert on Japanese systems. In addition I only play stock so it may different in a mod. REPLY This thread is related to all mods because the issue is code based - if it exists.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 8:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl The "cheat" is not the idea of Japanese "on map training", it's the way the game executes it. Fighter Pilots can work their way up to 80-90 straffing Chinese peasants (which might make them better at "ground support", but won't do a thing for their "air-to-air" primary skills). Bombers can do the same running little "transport shuttles". What happens in the game is a joke, and can be abused beyond all reccognition. If the Japanese wanted to engage in a real expanded "Pilot Training Program" to increase the number of "trained pilots" recieved, they would have had to increase trainer production and pull a number of their skilled pre-war pilots back to use as instructors. As the IJN didn't even have enough trained pilots to man the A/C it had available on Dec. 7th, this is unlikely. Japan's whole "war strategy" (such as it was) was based around the idea of a short war..., even they knew they didn't have the economic strength for a long one. True, there are innacuracies. It should be more difficult to build up your pilot skill to 80+ doing tasks that don't directly apply to combat. Ultimately, this game is attempting to model something massively complex. I don't believe any computer game has tried to simulate anything on this scale down to this detail before. I know Pacific War and some other earlier engines attempted some of this. The engine has limits. The training model could probably be tweaked a bit, but it would take some heavy rework of the engine to make it work completely realistically. The problem with this is it "forces" ahistorical play......How do the Allies "win"?.....They push a bunch of P-38's and B-17's into China and wreck the Japanese "training program"......This makes perfect sense according to the game's "logic"....., and no sense according to historical "logic"......There HAS to be a better way.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 9:16:07 AM)
I am not urprised I really dont think there is a hidden hard coded benefit to the allies or disadvantage to the Japanese its just a result of improving allied technology and therefore editable in the editor if mods want to change it. quote: ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell Just a few quick "test" runs with Japanese baseforces outfitted with US radars shows a marked improvement in the number of aircraft intercepting.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 9:20:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Just checked even IJNAF Base Forces are on the Sound Detecto - Type 13 path so the earliest they get Radar is 1/44 And in the stock game, if you haven't run Mike's little quick fix, the Type 13 actually works worse than the Sound Detectors since the penetration value is set incorrectly (it functions as surface detetion radar).

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 9:24:54 AM)
El Cid I guess what I am saying is unless I see proof I dont think there is a hard coded advantage/disadvantage in 43 the anecdotal evidence on an allied improvement/Japanese worsening IMO could be explained by Radar especially given what Mike W and Joe said earlier in the thread. happy to be proven wrong but if the programmers are saying it doenst exist and there is a plausible explanantion in game then I would struggle to believe in a 'hidden' piece of code. (INterestingly most of my Japanese opponents stand down in T Storms to avoid ops losses if I am right this is the WRONG thing to do ....they should be looking for T Storm days as they lower the effectiveness of DL's and therefore Radar and strip away one of the allied advantages !!!)

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl The "cheat" is not the idea of Japanese "on map training", it's the way the game executes it. Fighter Pilots can work their way up to 80-90 straffing Chinese peasants (which might make them better at "ground support", but won't do a thing for their "air-to-air" primary skills). Bombers can do the same running little "transport shuttles". What happens in the game is a joke, and can be abused beyond all reccognition. If the Japanese wanted to engage in a real expanded "Pilot Training Program" to increase the number of "trained pilots" recieved, they would have had to increase trainer production and pull a number of their skilled pre-war pilots back to use as instructors. As the IJN didn't even have enough trained pilots to man the A/C it had available on Dec. 7th, this is unlikely. Japan's whole "war strategy" (such as it was) was based around the idea of a short war..., even they knew they didn't have the economic strength for a long one. True, there are innacuracies. It should be more difficult to build up your pilot skill to 80+ doing tasks that don't directly apply to combat. Ultimately, this game is attempting to model something massively complex. I don't believe any computer game has tried to simulate anything on this scale down to this detail before. I know Pacific War and some other earlier engines attempted some of this. The engine has limits. The training model could probably be tweaked a bit, but it would take some heavy rework of the engine to make it work completely realistically. The problem with this is it "forces" ahistorical play......How do the Allies "win"?.....They push a bunch of P-38's and B-17's into China and wreck the Japanese "training program"......This makes perfect sense according to the game's "logic"....., and no sense according to historical "logic"......There HAS to be a better way. This is getting very confused: IF it is possible to go into China THAT is ahistorical - or we were idiots. Looks like it was never a logistically sensible operation - and we got driven out by IJA in fact. The war was really over China - and IF we could go there we SHOULD HAVE DONE. We didn't on a grand scale - because the routes would not permit it. WITP (except RHS) has too good a rail net up to NE India - so Allied offensives into Burma are way to early and strong. But I don't think even old WITP permits a major land force in China. Now I have heard that there are tricks players can use to up ratings - like "bomb the end of the runway" - but anyone doing that is not trying to simulate. The game has a training mission - and players training planes need to be using it. NOT doing that is indeed "cheating" - and not worth discussion. We need honorable play - or no system will ever work. There are ALWAYS ways to cheat in any sufficiently complex system. Simulations are SIMPLIFICATIONS of reality and not able to prevent every unreasonable thing. Common sense still has a role to play.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Just checked even IJNAF Base Forces are on the Sound Detecto - Type 13 path so the earliest they get Radar is 1/44 And in the stock game, if you haven't run Mike's little quick fix, the Type 13 actually works worse than the Sound Detectors since the penetration value is set incorrectly (it functions as surface detetion radar). I was not aware of a lot of play of stock games. I have never met - or read - of anyone who can stand the map - for one thing. The Type 13 is fixed in CHS and in RHS - and many other versions. And it is not delayed until 1944 - which is completely ahistorical - even more so if you understand the Type 11 has the SAME performance (it is just bigger and heavier). There should be a Japanese air search radar capable of ship mounting with 90 miles effective range in 1942 - not 1944 - and there are a few land based ones before the war begins - although those are not really the same radar - they are gigantic and not able to work on ships.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac El Cid I guess what I am saying is unless I see proof I dont think there is a hard coded advantage/disadvantage in 43 the anecdotal evidence on an allied improvement/Japanese worsening IMO could be explained by Radar especially given what Mike W and Joe said earlier in the thread. happy to be proven wrong but if the programmers are saying it doenst exist and there is a plausible explanantion in game then I would struggle to believe in a 'hidden' piece of code. (INterestingly most of my Japanese opponents stand down in T Storms to avoid ops losses if I am right this is the WRONG thing to do ....they should be looking for T Storm days as they lower the effectiveness of DL's and therefore Radar and strip away one of the allied advantages !!!) Well - I tend to respect players with over 10,000 turns experience - and I did do one test at 1.6 level - but I have not done much in the late war period. I would also love to be wrong about this. I don't like the idea of playing for years to see such a thing happen. And what in the world is a T Storm?

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:39:56 PM)
I could be wrong but most people play stock perhaps not the most vocal section of the community but probably the majority. Out of 11 PBEM games only 1 of mine has been CHS and it died pretty early. I havent looked at the AAR's in detail but I would be suprised if most were on CHS or RHS

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:40:47 PM)
T Storm = Thunderstorm

wdolson -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:46:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again This is getting very confused: IF it is possible to go into China THAT is ahistorical - or we were idiots. Looks like it was never a logistically sensible operation - and we got driven out by IJA in fact. The war was really over China - and IF we could go there we SHOULD HAVE DONE. We didn't on a grand scale - because the routes would not permit it. WITP (except RHS) has too good a rail net up to NE India - so Allied offensives into Burma are way to early and strong. But I don't think even old WITP permits a major land force in China. In the real world, the China strategy was a no go because of the difficulties in getting enough supply into mainland China via the routes left to support a large modern army. The first B-29 missions were from China, but the logistics of bringing in enough fuel and supplies for the bombers made those missions unfeasible. Somebody here posted the results of a game in which he invaded Indochina and then pushed a large force into China proper. That probably would have worked if the Allies could have gotten enough forces through Burma, which was very primitive at that time. Capture Indochina and there is some hope of getting enough supplies overland from Rangoon into China to support a large, mechanized army. quote: Now I have heard that there are tricks players can use to up ratings - like "bomb the end of the runway" - but anyone doing that is not trying to simulate. The game has a training mission - and players training planes need to be using it. NOT doing that is indeed "cheating" - and not worth discussion. We need honorable play - or no system will ever work. There are ALWAYS ways to cheat in any sufficiently complex system. Simulations are SIMPLIFICATIONS of reality and not able to prevent every unreasonable thing. Common sense still has a role to play. Yup. The map is not the territory. A model is always a simplification of reality. Models always have flaws. Whether you're talking about a plastic model of a B-17, a computer model of reality, or any sort of concept. That's why PBEM games have house rules. Of course playing the AI, you can do anything you want. The computer doesn't care. Bill

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 12:52:07 PM)
p.s while I may not have 10,000 game turns under my belt I have played at least 5,000 (admitedly all as allies) and I have never noticed a drop off in Japanese Fighter performance that could not be explained by other factors Pilot Exp (rising US primarily) Radar Improvments Better Allied Types Reductions in Japanese pilot quality To be honest i think some of the issues about Corsairs being to powerfull are co incidental as it coincides with the beginning of a general allied A2A upgrade as the radar technology improves. If there is evidence of testing I am happy to be convinced but I tend not to believe impressions without hard and fast testing Andy

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/7/2006 11:40:02 PM)
The Corsair is a remarkable aircraft - IMHO the finest propeller warplane of all time of any nation - and I am NOT a person who would insist such a title be given to a US design. It STILL (with the P-51) sets world speed records for propeller aircraft (they trade the title periodically) - but it is a lot more of a fighter bomber - and it can operate from carriers. It does not start out that great- but by the time you get to the F-4U-4 series - its numbers show up no matter how you rate things. I am not sure Corsair superiority is not an indication the model works- rather than is busted!

Nemo121 -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/8/2006 1:29:44 AM)
Hmm, what about the FW-190/Ta-152 series? Early versions managed to achieve superiority over the Spitfire. Later on you got a close to 4,000lb bomb load ( including an externally carried torpedo, if required) for use in fighter-bomber missions, add-on gun packs for extempore conversion to the bomber destroyer role, proper armour and armament increases in purpose-built bomber interceptors and, when FWs began to be superceded by later P47 and P51 variants they stepped up with excellent an excellent high-altitude combatant in the Ta-152. All in all a pretty versatile plane... Not much of a dogfighter but could zoom and boom with the best of them and with its exceptional roll rate it gave a pilot who knew how to use it a decisive edge in the OODA cycle which Boyd later showed determined the victor of so many aerial combats which lasted beyond the first, surprise, pass. It is a pity trained Corsair pilots were never pitted against trained FW-190/Ta-152 pilots in significant numbers so we could see how the two would compare.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/8/2006 3:35:53 AM)
Hmm, what about the FW-190/Ta-152 series? Virtually two different aircraft. Radial engined Fw190A a great Low level Fighter and Fighter-Bomber, but lacked high altitude performance. Fw190D with inline engine a first class high-altitude interceptor, but a lousy fighter-bomber. Ta152 was just the ultimate development of the 190D with extrodinary High-altitude performance. None could operate from a carrier, and the Corsair was quite good at all altitudes, though not as good a high interceptoras the Fw190D or Ta152. I think the point was the F4U's all-round performance...

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/8/2006 6:56:09 AM)
I am a FW-190 fan. But it is not in the league of a F-4U. It isn't a carrier plane. It isn't a long range plane. It isn't a fine bomber. It is better than a Me-109 - which itself is a superb short range land fighter. But that does not make it the best propeller plane of all time.

Hoplosternum -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/8/2006 3:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I could be wrong but most people play stock perhaps not the most vocal section of the community but probably the majority. Out of 11 PBEM games only 1 of mine has been CHS and it died pretty early. I havent looked at the AAR's in detail but I would be suprised if most were on CHS or RHS I agree. Nearly all my games have been stock. It's not that I am deliberately avoiding other maps or mods. It's just what people seem to play. While it has it's faults I am not aware of any killer problem with either the map or the OOB that makes stock unviable. Even your Hellcat issue would not likely be a problem with a PDU game as you could use Wildcats in back areas. Problems with gamey play or problem areas of the code are not as far as I am aware much addressed in the mods. The focus appears to be on OOB issues and replacement rates to get these correct regardless of how the game will then play. Niks mod will have a significant impact on the air combat model of course. Andy's map certainly helps stop a quick Japanese conquest of China, although I am not convinced this is especially easy now even in stock. But by reducing the number of existing bases in the Solomons etc. it aids an unhistorical rapid Japanese expansion in that area (although the allies have a greater depth in the Pacific with Bora Bora base etc). UK reinforcement while 'safe' in Aden, possibly make conquest of India easier. So while on balance it may be better than Stock but its not, from a gameplay point of view, better in all respects. In discussions about what changes to make I think many people play and therefore comment on Stock scenarios rather than mods.

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 12:01:55 AM)
Disappointing news here. I ran a test 1942 vs 1944. Each test consisted of 20 runs of the same B-Mod Air Combat scenario I created, total 40 runs. Allied Losses 1942 - 1158 1944 - 1338 Japanese Losses 1942 - 1236 1944 - 1917 Thats more than 50% increase in Japanese losses, which even with a sample of only 20 is statistically significant. In 1942 the highest loss in a single run was 79 which occured once. In 1944 were over 100 7 out of 20 times. Interesting that the Allied losses are a little higher too. Note that the early warning devices were not upgraded between the 2 tests. This is pretty discouraging. About ready to delete and move on. (These are actual air to air losses based on the intel screen, not the inaccurate comabt reports)

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 12:24:35 AM)
Interesting. If you are right - that stock is the norm - I bet it is more related to how easy it is to just install and run than anything about the merits of stock. Of course, I run in a circle of professionals and hard core naval gamers and or history buffs - but I never heard anyone comment like Hoplo just did that stock is even close to acceptable - either map wise or OB wise. The issue of air combat is partially addressed - and deliberately so - by RHS. We did it in a way that integrated addressing AAA combat and attrition for other causes as well. The issue of nuclear bombardments by bombers and ships was addressed - but only accidentally - simply by using a more sophisticated theory of rating shells and bombs - and this is about to become more sophisticated still - in a way that will further address that issue. The biggest problem that is addressed - although admittedly we are still getting it debugged - is logistics - which is - being polite - not well done to begin with. The biggest problem unaddressed is ground combat - and it - along with large air combats - needs code fixes. As for the map - I did a statistical comparison of errors on stock and Andrew's map - and the latter is almost exactly 10 times as accurate (average error about 1/10th the average error) - on a 100 point to point check. To think one can come close to simulation on a map ten times worse than Andrew's is - what adjective fits here? - fantasy? Adding Aden and Panama are very fine - for a logistic modeler like me - and makes the Japanese submarine aircraft carriers have a historical mission. [Of course, stock players - even CHS players - have no M6A1 submarine bomber for the I-400 or I-12 classes in the first place: why THAT is acceptable is completely a mystery to me? Why have a submarine aircraft carrier with no bomber?] Then there are things like no heavy transports, no gliders, no ASW aircraft, no blimps, no midget submarines, and that is just a tiny short list of what is absent which should not be from a game that advertises it has "every unit in the theater." Players playing without these things - well I don't think many can be entirely happy about it. These are not so much OB errors as failures to model significant aspects of the campaign. Then there are true mysteries: Matrix invented AND PUT IN drop tanks - but NEVER implemented them! You may only be able to use them in RHS - but it is not our doing: we just used what was in the device file. As for strategic issues - I have no idea why putting Aden on the map would make India easier to conquer - and I don't believe in conquering India in the first place: IF you played a logistic oriented mod you would find out what happens when you try to go too far.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 12:27:42 AM)
Thanks Nick. Too bad. I wish the sense we have a problem was wrong.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.25