RE: Dutch Bombers (Full Version)

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



Message


witpqs -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 7:53:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The problem isnt with 18 NEI Sqn, more with the units which players evacuate to SEAC or Australia, maybe an answer is to make these Sqns ineligible for upgrade, there isnt an historical precedent. They would then wither on the vine, or be based in Hobart on ASW search.


Why should they be ineligible for upgrade and forced to wither on the vine?




el cid again -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 11:58:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Actually, It's UK units that cannot upgrade until May '42. Dutch units cannot upgrade until July '42.


Well - that is something. Not sure it is enough to address a situation in which the Dutch didn't really upgrade until 1943, but it does prevent a 1941 or early 1942 upgrade - which is the big concern I had. For once I like hard code!





el cid again -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 12:05:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The problem isnt with 18 NEI Sqn, more with the units which players evacuate to SEAC or Australia, maybe an answer is to make these Sqns ineligible for upgrade, there isnt an historical precedent. They would then wither on the vine, or be based in Hobart on ASW search.


Why should they be ineligible for upgrade and forced to wither on the vine?



I tend to agree. While few of these units evacuated as units, a number of units did form up from evacuated components. A wiser Allied player/team might evacuate on a more organized basis sooner. Frankly to evacuate wholesale is not politically acceptable - and in fact the Dutch were PROUD they sent planes FORWARD to Malaya - rather than running right away. That makes some sense politically as well as militarily. But I feel ultimately it ought to be the Allied PLAYERS who decide what makes sense in their fictional game world? That is, I am reluctant to restrict them as a modder IF it was at all possible. Further - clearly such matters are ones of degree - rather than black and white "all units run and upgrade" or "no units run and upgrade." If even one unit is to be able to do so, who am I to say which unit it must be? The choice of how many, and which, should be PLAYER controlled. There are many restrictions on players: those imposed by the game design itself, those imposed by technical and historical possibilities in many senses. Within that context, I prefer to optimize the choices available to players. But that does raise another question in my mind: just because one unit upgraded to one plane, does that mean ALL units are forced to upgrade to the same plane? Might it be better to have a number of options? I wish we had time to discuss this at length - but we do not. Still - I will hold open the matter for half a day longer.




m10bob -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 2:33:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sid sez: "My data seem to indicate it was wholly obsolete, never built in numbers, not in production, and barely in service at all, with no operational record of any significance. Is that not all correct? Historical accuracy is relative: we cannot approach including all aircraft types - so we must compromise in favor of the more significant ones - and let others be represented by them. "

If here you are referring to the Singapore, you are completely correct.My info is that the few Australia had were commercial planes loaned to the goverment, not for military purpose whatsoever. (Kinda like using trainers for fighters!)
If you are referring to the Vincent, I have provided several quadrons which used them,some into 1943, and that would mean you don't have time to read the forums...[;)]



The discussion was in re Singapore. In the same class is the Stranraer. The Vildebeeste/Vincent is a different kettle of fish - is used in a number of places - and for a significant period of time. Further - I am using it to simulate the Singapore and the Stranraer - which have a similar patrol range. The types are combined, and they share speed, range and defensive armament, but the Vildebeeste are torpedo bombers while the Vincent is a level bomber. You cannot see it, but the units with Vincent only carry bombs. These are found in RNZAF and RCAF service, for sure - and I think there is one unit at Aden in RAF.




EXCELLENT!!!!!![:)]




m10bob -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 2:38:19 PM)

Just an observation..While the Dutch planes cannot upgrade for a time, there were other units being formed in Australia.Look at the Dutch B 25's which were "liberated" by Gen Kenney....Point being the website "Diggerhistory" shows all Dutch units which re-formed or were formed in Australia.See their dates and designations there..



Whoops..It's this site:


http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/nei-af.htm


Please note in the narrative that while under Australian "control", they did upgrade early from A 20 Bostons to B 25's....Perhaps the "upgrades "hard code" can be gotten around by putting them under similar Australian control??




Mifune -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 3:52:09 PM)

Excepting erratta 6.37 should represent the culmination of the Allied requests?




witpqs -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/29/2006 6:17:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
... But that does raise another question in my mind: just because one unit upgraded to one plane, does that mean ALL units are forced to upgrade to the same plane? Might it be better to have a number of options? I wish we had time to discuss this at length - but we do not. Still - I will hold open the matter for half a day longer.



Certainly. Generally speaking, when I make requests I try to frame them in a way that minimizes the workload on the modder. Having different squadrons with different upgrade options makes plenty of sense for the Dutch squadrons (all plane types).




el cid again -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/30/2006 11:52:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just an observation..While the Dutch planes cannot upgrade for a time, there were other units being formed in Australia.Look at the Dutch B 25's which were "liberated" by Gen Kenney....Point being the website "Diggerhistory" shows all Dutch units which re-formed or were formed in Australia.See their dates and designations there..



Whoops..It's this site:


http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/nei-af.htm


Please note in the narrative that while under Australian "control", they did upgrade early from A 20 Bostons to B 25's....Perhaps the "upgrades "hard code" can be gotten around by putting them under similar Australian control??


Reformed units are a problem. Note the ORIGINAL unit does not need to disband or be wiped out. So you can end up with units that are duplicated. And we cannot know if the people who "reformed" escaped or not - or by what date - or to what destination - in our fictional worlds? The best we can do is allow the existing unit to evacuate - that shows it did evacuate in time - and to where - and to re-equip.

The upgrade also presents an art problem. Original equipment operates with Dutch colors. Later "reformed" units tended to be under RAF or RAAF auspices, and I think they are better operating CW planes - since they then won't look like US units (note my scrupulous avoidance of the term "American" because - living most of my life near Canada - I know this is an irritation). Also - the Dutch will generally be played by the CW player in a team game situation - and that means there may be less trouble over upgrades. In general, my preference is to upgrade to CW types - in particular because the Dutch did it that way - and also because they had rather more problems getting along with the US generals. [Possibly the British pretensions to Empire had less problems with Dutch pretensions to Empire?]
Also - the number of machines available and the time to get them SHOULD be low/long IMHO - not easy/fast. Again making CW upgrades my preference. However, I am not sure we should not offer a variety of options?




el cid again -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/30/2006 11:53:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
... But that does raise another question in my mind: just because one unit upgraded to one plane, does that mean ALL units are forced to upgrade to the same plane? Might it be better to have a number of options? I wish we had time to discuss this at length - but we do not. Still - I will hold open the matter for half a day longer.



Certainly. Generally speaking, when I make requests I try to frame them in a way that minimizes the workload on the modder. Having different squadrons with different upgrade options makes plenty of sense for the Dutch squadrons (all plane types).


Thanks - in two different senses. First for the feedback. Second for being aware of the work involved.




m10bob -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/30/2006 12:00:52 PM)

Sid sez:"Also - the number of machines available and the time to get them SHOULD be low/long IMHO - not easy/fast. Again making CW upgrades my preference. However, I am not sure we should not offer a variety of options? "


Again correct..If it were easy, Gen Kenney would not have been able to "swipe" those Dutch B 25's..
As for units "re-forming"..I can think of at least one some folks might not like to see twice:
Douglas MacArthur..........[8D]




witpqs -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/30/2006 6:26:08 PM)

The objection I had to CW planes is that they are in much shorter supply (at least the ones specified so far like the Mitchell III). Even though some Dutch units used them, in WITP there are too few for the Dutch (except for the Kittyhawk, which worked out fine when that was the fighter upgrade). The US planes are much more numerous and I think that's more realistic for 'lend lease'. The art problem is just art, if it can't be perfect that's okay.

And, with m10bob showing that several Dutch units used various US aircraft models, I think that weakens any argument for 'CW only' types. YMMV.

Edit to add: I should mention that players can misuse almost anything in this game. Of course the planes should go to the host country's units first (although I am sure some exceptions occurred in real life for political if not operational reasons) and only go to the Dutch when available in surplus or after the host country upgrades away from that model. If a player should opt for the Dutch getting the most advanced types while the host country waits while stuck with the older stuff, I'm not too worried because of all the other gamey stuff that can be done. It's just outside the ability of the game engine to really police this stuff without getting too restrictive.




el cid again -> RE: Dutch Bombers (11/30/2006 11:38:04 PM)

By increasing the numbers of Mitchells over history in theater (by 50%),
I have partially addressed that issue.

By providing alternate upgrade paths, I have addressed it further.

And we won't have non-US planes running around in US markings either.

See next.




el cid again -> RE: RHSEOS 6.37 uploading (11/30/2006 11:43:50 PM)

Das ist alles.

Finito.

Consumatum est.


This is it: the pre-data washed versions of Level 5 and Level 6.

We have:

1) Reflagged Soviet ports

2) Reflagged Soviet ships

3) Soviet submarines present in Russian passive scenarios

4) Zero range 33 for the first time (= 11 operational extended range)

5) MAD gear working at last

6) Ki-74 restored to Japanese service

7) Dutch squadrons of four types have alternate upgrade options

8) Still more air unit loadouts for both sides

9) New (and old) configurations for new (and old) Japanese light cruisers, including Mogamis in their original 15 gun version, a 12 gun Oyodos, deletion of the improved Agano's (in favor of the Oyodo's),
conversion of protected cruisers to CLs.

10) Changing of appearance location and date and strength of the
Indian 19th Division

11) Conversion of New Zealand Mounted Brigades to motor vice horse

12) Conversion of CW 16 gun mg battalions to 48 gun (organic to brigades or divisions)

13) Lots of stuff I am forgetting to list.

Surrendering control of this file set.

Other scenarios will follow as the Soviet ships complete reflagging.

Sid




Mifune -> RE: RHSEOS 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 12:13:13 AM)

Already loaded in EditorX and inspecting.




el cid again -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 12:21:37 AM)

CVO and RAO uploaded at Level 6.37

slightly incorrect EOS aircraft and location files reissued for the set and should be right on the site
when Cobra does this - which should be soon - sun coming up in Australia




Mifune -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 12:32:33 AM)

I was about to ask about the aircraft file since it looked the same as 6.36.




CobraAus -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 1:11:23 AM)

sun is well up - as these files are comming in - in dribs and drabs I will up date the scenario folders as I get the up dates - then when I have full sets will upload to Send Space
there are 5 updates avail now on web site in scenario folders

cobra aus




Sneer -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 10:41:02 AM)

i played RHS recently against AI
looks like lowered durability cause much bigger flak losses
looks like average PH strike  losses-  which are my benchmark- are near 60-70 range
given average result of 1 BB sunk it is disputable if PH strike is good opening option for japan

question : is it possible to have KB starting as in stock at kuriles ? and have ability to use KB in other place than PH ?





el cid again -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 11:54:16 AM)

Actually,

AAA losses should be much higher because AA itself is more effective. This is because guns with no ceiling have a ceiling now; because there are more warning systems; and because there are lots more AA guns - including even AAMG.

It is a mixed bag: some AAA had far too great a ceiling - and most was rated at the absolute ceiling to the absolute range of the gun. One gun had 250% of ceiling and several had 200%. RHS uses LESS than ceiling - it uses effective ceiling - and it limits AA range to = ceiling (to the nearest thousand yards). Thus the volumn of space at risk is generally less.

Durability was too high - and was lowered to help raise operational losses. However, we found we had lowered it too far, and now have applied a K of 2. We could use a higher constant (say 3 or 4) if statistical analysis suggests this is correct. The price of this is we will DECREASE operational attrition - which we wished to increase.

Pearl Harbor is not typical. Aside from special things which happen if first turn surprise is on, I have disabled many of the AAA guns. Normally it would be very expensive to fly over that place! Tests should not be done on the first day sitution - to get a more normal outcome.

Anti-air warfare is my Navy specialty, and I was trained originally on a version of the 3 inch 50 - to a standard of "hit with the first round." To that end we were only permitted to fire one round per tube - 2 per mounting - to see if we really had solved the fire control problem correctly? This using WWII era synchro servo controlled FC systems.
I do believe that - in conditions where you can see the target visually or on radar - AAA is a good deal more effective than most people think it is. Or at least potentially so - IF you have detected the target in time to man the mounts, warm up the computers, load the guns, etc. AND IF you are good at what you do.

A complicating factor is that you can affect your losses by your operational tactics. For example, a 3 inch AA gun of the classic type normal in 1941 has a ceiling of 22,000 feet (due to fuse limitations) - and you can elect to come in above that level. Similarly, you can avoid all MMG if you are above 2000 feet, all HMG if you are above 4000 feet,
and all medium AAA if you are above about 12000 feet. Losses can run from 30 to 120, depending on the tactics you select. The statistical normal case is 2 battleships sunk IF you permit the Kates to go in with 800 KG bombs - and that is right. [We only admit 2 losses at PH - both still there. Technically there was a third - although the ship didn't sink until 1946 - and then not at Pearl! But she was never useful again and did ultimately sink.]

The Kiddo Butai may sail anywhere it wants to sail - and it will sail for about a week - and arrive with full tanks!
To compensate for that, RHS has taken half the tankers and they won't appear for two weeks. You are NOT required to attack Hawaii.

If anyone has statistical studies, or recommendations for K, I am interested. We have a system that may be relatively valid, but it may be skewed. We can adjust this and need to know what results are occurring in order to understand any possible adjustment.




Sneer -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 12:26:47 PM)

in stock PH raid costs 25-40 planes which is close to historical result
now in rhs average result is 60-70 planes
that is what makes me thinking that it is not ok
especially that players gets usually worse than historical results in terms of BBs sunk

there is no sense to attack PH in RHS at this moment




Sneer -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 1:27:17 PM)

another issue
is it possible to get auto upgrades path for plane factories?


not a problem i will do it for myself by databese editor




Sneer -> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading (12/1/2006 1:32:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


A complicating factor is that you can affect your losses by your operational tactics. For example, a 3 inch AA gun of the classic type normal in 1941 has a ceiling of 22,000 feet (due to fuse limitations) - and you can elect to come in above that level. Similarly, you can avoid all MMG if you are above 2000 feet, all HMG if you are above 4000 feet,
and all medium AAA if you are above about 12000 feet. Losses can run from 30 to 120, depending on the tactics you select. The statistical normal case is 2 battleships sunk IF you permit the Kates to go in with 800 KG bombs - and that is right. [We only admit 2 losses at PH - both still there. Technically there was a third - although the ship didn't sink until 1946 - and then not at Pearl! But she was never useful again and did ultimately sink.]




i know that but to make any comparison you have to freeze everything what is possible
initial altitudes and air groups targets are same as in stock / i did not change that/
so ceteris paribus we can compare that with stock which is close to historical result

i think that lower durabilities are good ideas - i like penalties to over-active players
maybe effect of AAA guns should be lowered ???
i know it is difficult as some of them are DP guns
but certainly we can influance smaller guns




Sneer -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 2:37:36 PM)

few questions

1.how snorkel works in game ? it is 0 range radar ??? does anything with zero value actually work ?
2. YU class subs are without weaponery - i think they should carry kaitens basing on artwork - or they are transport subs ?
3. RTN Sri Ayuthia should be CA like Soerabaya - PG can't bombard
4. why h2s/mk6 radar has 9999/unlimited range ??




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 4:01:48 PM)

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them [:)]




Sneer -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 4:13:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them [:)]


damaging BBs is not worth effort only sinking them is ok
you can check my PBEM with Raverdave - KB in dei speeds up everything a lot + paralyses enemy + offers him opportunity to loose BB in open waters
it is not only losses ratio but also gives you better position

not counting that i prefer one timezone port attack surprise that allows mauling manila/singapore/clark in opening hours




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 4:34:53 PM)

Well, I don't think this is a mere mathematical problem. As I see it, you spare the 8 BB's in Pearl Harbor => the allied player may send them to the Dutch East Indies, etc. Americans have a lot of oilers after all (and fuel). Then we have the many variables... Are you sure you will always detect & attack every BB? Again, this is not a mathematical problem. No absolute rules. Some will be detected, but others won't. And these nasty things may massacre your convoys (and troops): allies gain time. And above all, Nagumo's horde can't be everywhere.


I'll be optimistic: these BB's are sent to DEI and are heavily damaged or sunk. But I am pretty sure you will have damaged (and/or sunk?) ships as well (BB's, CA's, DD's). You will lose transports and troops, therefore the allies are slowing down your offensive. But all these naughty hypotheses can be avoided if you attack the rat's nest itself. So what should be the cost? a) some dozens of planes, or b) ships, troops, time (AND planes as well)? [:)]

We should trust the real life planners [:)]




m10bob -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 5:23:16 PM)

I must agree with Tulius..If a BB is damaged sufficiently, it is not only out of action for a time, it is also cluttering a repair yard somewhere..Ships in repair yards are immobile potential targets..
If AA is now a bit too effective,maybe it or plane durability can be tweaked a degree further?
I appreciate Sid's thought on limiting the effective altitude of the AA guns.
As in real-life maybe very high flying planes will be near invulnerable, with a trade-off in the damage they cause..?




Sneer -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 5:51:28 PM)

we are hijacking thread and i'd like to see Sid answering my questions
i'll gladly play PBEm on my terms against any of you :-)




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 6:03:50 PM)

Sneer, well, that's your own respectable opinion [:)]

But to me (hypothetical scenario), not attacking Pearl Harbor means the initial OOB CAN be "different". You should have to add 8 battleships to the port of Soerbaja. You are assuming that this won't make any difference. I'm just saying that you can't assume what can't be assumed (redundant): uncertainty is a very important variable in war [8D]

Anyway, I can agree with you. If you don't attack Pearl Harbor AND the allied player does NOT use these BB's... Oh well.

I don't think a PBEM is relevant. Remember: 8 BB's in Soerbaja (or any other port/s). It's common sense [8D]

El Cid Again has sort of answered part of your question: it depends on the altitude. Low altitude: high losses. High altitude: low losses.




Mifune -> RE: Dutch Bombers (12/1/2006 6:29:32 PM)

Sneer, El Cid is on Alaska time so it will probably be a bit before your questions get answered. Usually 5 or 6 hours from now, but you never know.




Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.125