RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (Full Version)

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



Message

tsimmonds -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:25:55 PM)

Excellent point Mike, based on their doctrine and the technical limits of their hardware, no IJN CV should never be able to contribute more than 50% of its a/c to any one strike wave.



Sardaukar -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:31:15 PM)

From Andrews page:

Experimental A2A variant: This variant has modified scenario data, especially for aircraft, in an attempt to reduce the "bloodiness" of air-to-air combat, as well as some other "experimental" changes. The purpose of this scenario variant is to allow testing of these changes in an in-game environment. Specifically, the following data changes are applied:
  • The starting experience values of all Allied pilots has been decreased by 10%, except for USN pilots.
  • The starting experience values of all USN and Japanese pilots has been decreased by 5%.
  • The Zero bonus has been removed (this is compensated for by the larger reduction in Allied pilot experience).
  • The durability values of all fighter aircraft, including float fighters, night fighters and fighter-bombers are increased by 60%.
  • The durability values of all other aircraft are increased by 40%.
  • The effect rating of all AA/DP weapons has been increased by 30%.
  • The maximum speed value range has been compressed by halving the difference between actual aircraft max speed and a centre point of 350 MPH.
  • The accuracy of all air launched torpedoes - Japanese and Allied - has been reduced by 25% (ship and sub launched torpedo accuracy is unchanged).
Thus, AA is not as severe as in Nik-mod, but severe enough to cause trouble when over-doing one's air attacks.



Przemcio231 -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:31:41 PM)

Well that's a good Point.  I would also love to See Garrison Requirements in Every Jap Captured Base so Japan will be somewhat Limited in further Expansion.



Przemcio231 -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:45:14 PM)

Is this Exp. Mode Playable???



RevRick -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:47:46 PM)

Heavens forfend.. It's the IJN Death Star again..



Apollo11 -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:47:59 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The problem is a simple on of design screw-up. Look at the size of the first Japanese Airstrike. It contains 325 of the less than 200 A/C that Kido Butai could launch in a single strike. (Check Pearl Harbor, check Midway, check anything you want---Japanese CV's launched approximately HALF of their airgroups in a "Strike" because that's all that could be prepared and spotted for launch at one time.). The numbers swamp the defending CAP and Flak. Then toss in the "every man an ace" pilot skills, and the Allies are generally hamburger. Just correcting this one factor would at least give the Allies a fighting chance.


All very true... but USN was much worse than that in 1942... [;)]



Leo "Apollo11"



Przemcio231 -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 6:50:11 PM)

Well from what i rember they were sending all their airgroups into a strike....



Guest -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 7:41:07 PM)

What wrong is in this battle??
All TF reacted, distance 4 hexes.
Przemcio carriers - only 161 bombers attacked with very bad escort (max 1:4 to my CAP).
My carriers attakcs - 368 bombers with good escort (54->83).
My Zeros didn't stop his bomber. His fighters didn't stop my bombers. But my bombers were more and they had torpedos.
My TF's had BB, Przemcios TF doesn't.
My TF's were stronger than his.
My Zeros had very good pilots. I had more than 80 aces at naval pilots many at carriers. Przemcio hasn't aces at naval pilots.
Sorry but this battle was absolutly normal.

Przemcio lost India. We must change this.
Przemcio lost his carriers. It's sucks. We must change this also.
At last he lost his surface fleet... [:D] Maybe surface battles are also wrong??
But when he won carriers battle - all were ok. Link again:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1248479





ChezDaJez -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 7:44:24 PM)

quote:

Well that's a good Point. I would also love to See Garrison Requirements in Every Jap Captured Base so Japan will be somewhat Limited in further Expansion.


There are certainly areas where Japanese garrisons outside of China were needed, the Philippines for example. However there were many other places where the Japanese were welcomed (at least initially) as liberators such as in the Dutch East Indies. The native populations strongly resented Dutch control and in Java and Sumatra the Japanese gave them a small measure of autonomy that gave the illusion of self-government.

So I would say that if you feel that the Japanese should need to garrison every base they conquer, I would say the Dutch should maintain garrisons at their bases also.

But that aside, the problem with requiring garrisons in WitP is that you don't have the smaller, rear-echelon forces available that performed this duty IRL. The Japanese didn't use front-line troops to garrison bases very often. Control in many areas was maintained by small security forces or by patrolling.

You don't always need an active force at every location to maintain control of an area. Just the threat of reprisal was often enough to keep trouble away.

Chez



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 7:53:59 PM)



Well in fact WITP air model has several problems with reality:

_ a base or TF, or even group of TF will send usually a raid against a given target (except special coordination rules for US CV) with no problem due to different speed of the aircraft, or the ability to launch them all. While in reality gathering air units together and coordinating was time and fuel consuming, so reducing the range, and was difficult and often a failure, especially when various nation/commands were trying (or not) to work together.

_ from what is shown on the screen, 95% of the aircraft that take off for a raid find their target.... 50% will be good enough.

_ each unit on CAP will try to engage each attacking unit, sometimes several time, and usually succeed to engage at least half the time. In real life, a given formation was able to engage 1 or 2 enemy units, and often found nothing (even with radar in 1944-45).

_ escort fighters will always be engaged before bombers. In at least 3 cases on 4, the bombers were intercepted first and the escorts then came to the rescue and engaged the attackers.

_ bombing attacks on airfield will kill tens of AC on the ground, strafing attacks will cost many AC and destroy less than what you lost.... History was almost always the contrary, strafing attacks were the real AC killers on the ground.

_ medium bombers are less efficient than heavy ones. In fact their speed and manoeuvaribility allowed then to attack at low alt and score more hits than high-alt heavy bombers. They were the ones that sank ships, destroyed AC and closed airfields.

_ the ability to have reinforcement or replacement being generated on the frontline is grealty increasing the quantity of AC available.



Sardaukar -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 7:59:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Is this Exp. Mode Playable???


Yes, I play Scen 160 vs. Aztez in PBEM. Very playable. Check AB's website for CHS scens.

CHS page link

There are Standard, NikModded and Experimental versions of CHS available.



qgaliana -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 7:59:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The problem is a simple on of design screw-up. Look at the size of the first Japanese Airstrike. It contains 325 of the less than 200 A/C that Kido Butai could launch in a single strike. (Check Pearl Harbor, check Midway, check anything you want---Japanese CV's launched approximately HALF of their airgroups in a "Strike" because that's all that could be prepared and spotted for launch at one time.). The numbers swamp the defending CAP and Flak. Then toss in the "every man an ace" pilot skills, and the Allies are generally hamburger. Just correcting this one factor would at least give the Allies a fighting chance.


All very true... but USN was much worse than that in 1942... [;)]



Leo "Apollo11"



An old AH board game I used to own (Flat Top I think?) had a nice design feature for this. A ready factor for every base and ship limited how many planes you could actually launch in an impulse (or arm, etc). The effect was to thin out the size of a strike as the range increased. If you were flying out to max range the dozen or so planes you had just launched couldn't hang about waiting for everyone else to join them or they'd run out of fuel on the way back.

Here the only effect of range is a flat % reduction when beyond normal range?

In a computer game it shouldn't be that hard to create a sliding scale of strike size vs range vs base size. Seems a lot of board game simplifications are still lingering in the code.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 8:08:14 PM)

quote:

Excellent point Mike, based on their doctrine and the technical limits of their hardware, no IJN CV should never be able to contribute more than 50% of its a/c to any one strike wave.


It is a good point. But one that should not be implemented in WitP, at least the current version. The reason I say this is due to the way the air phases are programmed. They basically each cover a 6 hour period and any nation's carrier forces were capable of launching multiple strikes within just a few hours. So whatever launch restriction is put in place, it should apply to US carries also, at least through 1942.

KB launched 2 waves 1 hour apart totalling 350 aircraft against Pearl Harbor in what would be the AM phase in WitP. They were capable of launching further strikes during the rest of the day if Nagumo hadn't rescinded the order. If we limited airstrikes to only 1/2 of the available aircraft, we would not be able to simulate carrier ops with any degree of accuracy.

I think the better solution would be to limit individual raids to 1/2 the available aircraft but allow more than one strike per TF per phase. I think the results would be more realistic in the execution of the launches but we would also compund the uber-CAP problem (for both sides) by doing so. Each raid would be encountering a CAP that, by comparison, is twice as strong as was previously. That is because the size of the raid has been reduced.

I don't know how easy it would be to program multiple TF raids. I suspect it would require some major reprogramming.

Chez



Nikademus -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 8:23:52 PM)

quote:


It is a good point. But one that should not be implemented in WitP, at least the current version. The reason I say this is due to the way the air phases are programmed. They basically each cover a 6 hour period and any nation's carrier forces were capable of launching multiple strikes within just a few hours


my god. someone who understands that this isn't a tactical level carrier simulation. [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 8:24:46 PM)

Nah, you're just dreeeeeaming...



castor troy -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 8:38:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Yach Guest maybe we will swith sides[:D] But still this game Stock A2A sucks as the only outcome of a Big CV Battle here is "Mariana's Turkey Shoot" for one of the Sides. Come on looking at this game you might think That the Outcome's of Coral Sea and Midway were some Miracles and they were not. The Other Thing Jap CV Armor!!!! come on Those Carriers were not Immune to 500 Lb's[:D] witch is nonsense...  Yes i experienced the same thing Playing Willie where he stacekd Lots of AAA and Base Forces in his Bases and i could not tuch them[:D] i think the best solution would be Nik Changes to A2A and lets say 20% increase of AAA Power[:)] But the A2A model is not the only game flow, other are Teleporting Units , Smal Fragment of Paras droped on a hex blocking movement of Few Divisions , Lack of Indian Army Units , Small Parafragment's taking a City , Possibility to starve China with Jap Startegy bombing... and so on and on.... Well i think i will give Nik Mode another shoot[:D]




You want another Nik mod game? I´m looking desperately for an opponent, Allied or Japanese. Seems either my long thread or the house rules have scared off possible opponents.



Guest -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 8:50:05 PM)

Do you like crying opponent?? [:D]
Sorry but this battle was normal (for NIK mod also).



VSWG -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 8:57:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

What wrong is in this battle??
All TF reacted, distance 4 hexes.
Przemcio carriers - only 161 bombers attacked with very bad escort (max 1:4 to my CAP).
My carriers attakcs - 368 bombers with good escort (54->83).
My Zeros didn't stop his bomber. His fighters didn't stop my bombers. But my bombers were more and they had torpedos.
My TF's had BB, Przemcios TF doesn't.
My TF's were stronger than his.
My Zeros had very good pilots. I had more than 80 aces at naval pilots many at carriers. Przemcio hasn't aces at naval pilots.
Sorry but this battle was absolutly normal.

Przemcio lost India. We must change this.
Przemcio lost his carriers. It's sucks. We must change this also.
At last he lost his surface fleet... [:D] Maybe surface battles are also wrong??
But when he won carriers battle - all were ok. Link again:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1248479

I agree with Guest - the results of this battle are IMO justified. Especially after Przemcio231 used CV TFs with 3 and 2 carriers - no wonder his strikes were rather uncoordinated. If he had used 1 CV TFs, he probably would have inflicted more damage on the Japanese carriers, too.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:00:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:


It is a good point. But one that should not be implemented in WitP, at least the current version. The reason I say this is due to the way the air phases are programmed. They basically each cover a 6 hour period and any nation's carrier forces were capable of launching multiple strikes within just a few hours


my god. someone who understands that this isn't a tactical level carrier simulation. [;)]


No, it's a barge&squad tactical simulation, including that you have to turn around the barge and unload the whole squad on a atoll when one of the soldiers needs to answer a call of the nature.

Other than that it is a strategic level wargame. The proof is that you can load a barge in Singapore with troops and order it to invade San Francisco. It will arrive around four month later but it will do it.



Guest -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:01:47 PM)

quote:

Teleporting Units

I never loked teleprting unit. I think that you invent.

quote:

Smal Fragment of Paras droped on a hex blocking movement of Few Divisions ,

This is not true. We play with house rules and I didn't block any your units in this method.

quote:

Lack of Indian Army Units

You moved many Indian units to Burma. You written that you didn't move. But it don't true.

quote:

Small Parafragment's taking a City

Empty city. We stoped this and take many new rules.

quote:

Possibility to starve China with Jap Startegy bombing.

We have house rules and we weren't strategic bombing in China.

Our battle absolutly normal also for NIK mod. CAP did't stop bombers.

Przemcio, you are very bad loser. If is correct in English. Sorry for my English.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:07:15 PM)

quote:

my god. someone who understands that this isn't a tactical level carrier simulation.


Who, me? You mean, it isn't a tactical level carrier simulation?! Hey, I want my money back!!![:'(]

Chez



Przemcio231 -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:08:21 PM)

Well i can but i you seem to have changed to the AK's and AP's loadout[:D] Well and you want 1942 and i like those early action's in the DEI. Sorry VSWG but puting 5 separate CV TF's on one hex is a) Bit Gamy b) No one Guarante that my strikes will be cordinated. c) its totaly risky as some TF's may react and some don't.  Yech All knowing Guest check out NIK mode CV battle i had with Nemo the result was different or maybe check out My LBA ws Willies KB off Australia you can compare that to the battles near India and Australia despite sending 60 - 70 Bombers all got shoot up. The Other Issue is the Devastator Range come on show me the battle in witch Devastator didn't attack Jap CV's (off course Result's of the attack dose not count).

And as for Guest who was crying getting his ass whiped in "Here I Stand[:D][:D][:D][:D] 




Miller -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:15:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guest

Do you like crying opponent?? [:D]
Sorry but this battle was normal (for NIK mod also).


His first strike consisted of 89 fighters and 108 DB/TB. All were shot down by your 250 Zero CAP. No way would this have happened in Nikmod. Agreed he would probably still have lost all his CV's but enough of his a/c would have got through to perhaps sink one or two of your carriers.

Stock A2A model stinks. I am suprised anyone is still willing to play a game using it.



Guest -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:28:46 PM)

quote:

And as for Guest who was crying getting his ass whiped in "Here I Stand

You lost war versus me. You play Papacy and you totaly ignored protestants it was nonsense.

quote:

His first strike consisted of 89 fighters and 108 DB/TB. All were shot down by your 250 Zero CAP.

What?? When?? [X(][X(][X(]



Nikademus -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:47:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

my god. someone who understands that this isn't a tactical level carrier simulation.


Who, me? You mean, it isn't a tactical level carrier simulation?! Hey, I want my money back!!![:'(]

Chez


Sorry, you money went towards my Pizza fund.

[:D]



tsimmonds -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:53:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Excellent point Mike, based on their doctrine and the technical limits of their hardware, no IJN CV should never be able to contribute more than 50% of its a/c to any one strike wave.


It is a good point. But one that should not be implemented in WitP, at least the current version. The reason I say this is due to the way the air phases are programmed. They basically each cover a 6 hour period and any nation's carrier forces were capable of launching multiple strikes within just a few hours. So whatever launch restriction is put in place, it should apply to US carries also, at least through 1942.

KB launched 2 waves 1 hour apart totalling 350 aircraft against Pearl Harbor in what would be the AM phase in WitP. They were capable of launching further strikes during the rest of the day if Nagumo hadn't rescinded the order. If we limited airstrikes to only 1/2 of the available aircraft, we would not be able to simulate carrier ops with any degree of accuracy.

I think the better solution would be to limit individual raids to 1/2 the available aircraft but allow more than one strike per TF per phase. I think the results would be more realistic in the execution of the launches but we would also compund the uber-CAP problem (for both sides) by doing so. Each raid would be encountering a CAP that, by comparison, is twice as strong as was previously. That is because the size of the raid has been reduced.

I don't know how easy it would be to program multiple TF raids. I suspect it would require some major reprogramming.

Chez

There already are multiple raids. Look at this combat report: KB had three waves attack the US CVTF. The existance of multiple waves seems perfectly realistic, and gives a very tactical feel to the execution of the turn. Given this tactical feel, my only problem is with the number of a/c that were in the first of these waves. Seems like a reasonable thing to want to see implemented, given other rules aimed at imparting a tactical feel (strike coordination penalty).


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

my god. someone who understands that this isn't a tactical level carrier simulation. [;)]


It doesn't have to be a tactical level simulation to include tactical elements that would make turn resolution more realistic.



Nikademus -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:53:38 PM)

Best way to acheive success in Nikmod (carrier wise) is the ensure you provide a generous escort for your bombers, otherwise the small escort might get overwelmed (and mostly shot out or morale failured) after which the large CAP will have plenty of rounds left to shoot up the bombers. They won't get em all but the important thing there is the disruption. Surviving bombers hit moderately to hard by enemy fighter attacks preform much more poorly than intact bomber groups when bombing the target. Happened to me in an earlier Nikmod version against Bombur. Good number of bombers survived but scored poorly. After he sent me the save and i played around with it, i found that had my escort been more the rival of the enemy CAP (110 planes) the losses not only would have been less lopsided but my hit rate skyrocketed as a result of less #'s and rounds to attack the bombers.

Too often Allied players are tempted to keep back a large % of fighters on CAP hoping to beat off their attackers but thats a trap because the Japanese bombers will leak too. I consider that a byproduct of being used to playing stock. (i've done it myself as Bombur will attest [:D] )





Nikademus -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:56:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant



quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

my god. someone who understands that this isn't a tactical level carrier simulation. [;)]


It doesn't have to be a tactical level simulation to include tactical elements that would make turn resolution more realistic.



Wasn't my point. The point is, its easy to throw insults in the direction of the developers vs. actually taking the time to develop and test the game. Grigsby, having made more than one tactical carrier game is well aware of launch limitations. However some people seem to consider that big AM or PM strike to represent "one" strike which is incorrect.

But please.....don't let me get in the way of a good rant. Its not like they all havn't been typed before.....



Mike Scholl -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 9:58:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The problem is a simple on of design screw-up. Look at the size of the first Japanese Airstrike. It contains 325 of the less than 200 A/C that Kido Butai could launch in a single strike. (Check Pearl Harbor, check Midway, check anything you want---Japanese CV's launched approximately HALF of their airgroups in a "Strike" because that's all that could be prepared and spotted for launch at one time.). The numbers swamp the defending CAP and Flak. Then toss in the "every man an ace" pilot skills, and the Allies are generally hamburger. Just correcting this one factor would at least give the Allies a fighting chance.


All very true... but USN was much worse than that in 1942... [;)]
Leo "Apollo11"




And if you will take a good look at the "after action report" he posted, you will see that the USN fairs much worse than that in the game..., and somewhat unfairly, based on Midway. Look at the strike that sank the Shoho during Coral Sea. Perfectly coordinated! The US COULD do it on occasion, but the Japs NEVER got much more than half their A/C in a single strike.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Matrix do something with this nonsense... (9/14/2006 10:10:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Excellent point Mike, based on their doctrine and the technical limits of their hardware, no IJN CV should never be able to contribute more than 50% of its a/c to any one strike wave.


It is a good point. But one that should not be implemented in WitP, at least the current version. The reason I say this is due to the way the air phases are programmed. They basically each cover a 6 hour period and any nation's carrier forces were capable of launching multiple strikes within just a few hours. So whatever launch restriction is put in place, it should apply to US carries also, at least through 1942.

KB launched 2 waves 1 hour apart totalling 350 aircraft against Pearl Harbor in what would be the AM phase in WitP. They were capable of launching further strikes during the rest of the day if Nagumo hadn't rescinded the order. If we limited airstrikes to only 1/2 of the available aircraft, we would not be able to simulate carrier ops with any degree of accuracy.

I think the better solution would be to limit individual raids to 1/2 the available aircraft but allow more than one strike per TF per phase. I think the results would be more realistic in the execution of the launches but we would also compund the uber-CAP problem (for both sides) by doing so. Each raid would be encountering a CAP that, by comparison, is twice as strong as was previously. That is because the size of the raid has been reduced. That's what I was proposing. It's not wrong that all the Japanese planes fly during the Morning Phase, only that they arrive in a huge clump that overwhelms the defense. Had they arrived as 180 and 170, I'd have no complaint. "Uber-Cap" should suffer the same restrictions. Just because you have 120 Fighters on CAP doesn't mean that they are all in the air at the right moment. Should probably be no more than 40-60% that can meet an attack...with the Americans getting better as the war goes on and they master the FDC/Radar coordination. But even in the Mariana's Turkey Shoot not every fighter was involved in every intercept.

I don't know how easy it would be to program multiple TF raids. I suspect it would require some major reprogramming.

Chez




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625