RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/10/2008 9:41:27 PM)

quote:

How about doing away with the "Zero Advantage"


As far as I know UV doesn´t have a Zero advantage besides pilot experience.

quote:

It was a relatively short superiority enjoyed by the Zero as the Wildcat eventually (when used properly) proved it's equal and then came the improved planes which made the Zero a flying coffin.


Taking pilot experience out of the equation a Wildcat is not equal to a Zero. The Zero is the superior fighter. The US developed the Thatch Weave, and this is a defensive maneuver for this very reason. Their losses would have been much, much higher had they went traditional dogfighting against Zeros.

Perhaps the Allied fighters need a system that incorporates a defensive bonus when going against superior Japanese fighters. This defensive bonus should not give them an offensive bonus to shoot down Zeros, but simply be defensive in nature.



Charbroiled -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 12:13:38 AM)

quote:


Taking pilot experience out of the equation a Wildcat is not equal to a Zero.


Seems like there is varying opinions on this:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1496912&mpage=1&key=Zero%2CBonus



Miller -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 12:40:49 AM)

Basically WITP upgrades would do in the following areas:

1) Ability to select which sqd upgrades/what they upgrade to.

2) As Ike stated, reaction range for bombers.

3) Realistic strike sizes i.e. no 200 plane carrier strikes against a single minesweeper.

4) ASW as in WITP

5) Repair ships (AR's) even if only one per side.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 1:23:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The Zero is the superior fighter ...


Superior on offense, but w/o armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, like most Japanese weapons, the A6M has little or no defensive capability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
... Perhaps the Allied fighters need a system that incorporates a defensive bonus when going against superior Japanese fighters. This defensive bonus should not give them an offensive bonus to shoot down Zeros, but simply be defensive in nature.


This makes sense: algorithms that give an offensive bonus to the Zero vs. a defensive bonus to the Wildcat; then throw in all the other "modifiers" -- wx, pilot experience, fatigue, etc., -- and roll the "virtual" dice.



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 5:56:06 AM)

quote:

Seems like there is varying opinions on this:


There is always varying opinions about everything but still, the Zero was faster, more manuverable, climbed faster and operated at altitude better.

The Wildcat was heavier armored, dived better, but this doesn´t help to put your guns on an enemy plane in a dogfight.

The Zero was the superior dogfighter all the way around.

Something that does need to be included though, on bombing missions, both ground and naval, escorting fighters are never hit by anti air fire. Only the attack aircraft. The escorting fighters are immune to surface fire. This is where the no armored Zero and armored Wildcat difference should show up.

quote:

3) Realistic strike sizes i.e. no 200 plane carrier strikes against a single minesweeper.


That´s a good one. That would knock out the single ship invasion debate and using single ship patrol boats to fatigue 200 friendly pilots while an enemy carrier strike force lingers in the rear ready to pounce on you.



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 7:36:32 AM)

I was going to jump in with a point or two about the Zero, but those guys in that thread you posted said it a lot better then I could have. If I were in a turning fight, I'd want to be Japanese...pretty much the only time tho.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 2:03:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Seems like there is varying opinions on this:



The Wildcat was heavier armored, dived better, but this doesn´t help to put your guns on an enemy plane in a dogfight.

The Zero was the superior dogfighter all the way around.


[quote


Which is why the Wildcats seriously defeated the Zeroes as soon as the Allied pilots learned to avoid dogfighting them and started utilizing diving slashing attacks instead.

The Zero's lack of armor protection for the pilot, and even worse their lack of self sealing fuel tanks, heavily outweighed any and all advantages they had in flight characteristics.

Zeroes were flying torches looking for a place to flame out!



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 2:57:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... the Zero was faster, more manuverable, climbed faster and operated at altitude better.

The Wildcat was heavier armored, dived better ...

The Zero was the superior dogfighter all the way around.


Ike, you just proved it wasn't the superior all-around fighter!

You can't have your cake and eat it; you can't build a fast fighter w/o sacrificing armor protection. How can you expect to preserve the life of your pilot w/o self-sealing tanks, esp. when one is placed between the pilot and the A6M engine?

Re Thatch Weave: although primarilly a defensive tactic, 3 Wildcats successfully used it against IJN CAP at Midway. According to Shattered Sword, despite being greatly out-numbered, Thatch and a wingman shot down 4 Zeros w/o any losses to themselves in 25 minutes of dog-fighting. Apparently the best defense is a good offense.

"This was perhaps the first concrete instance in the war in which American fighters demonstrated that they were taking the full measure of their Japanese opposite numbers."

And Guadalcanal/CF comes after Midway.




Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 7:24:14 PM)

quote:

Which is why the Wildcats seriously defeated the Zeroes as soon as the Allied pilots learned to


You´re reading those funny history books again yes Hans?

The very best Wildcat units scored a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero Hans. For the rest, much less. Maybe you´re thinking of the Hellcat.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 7:46:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... The very best Wildcat units scored a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero Hans. For the rest, much less. Maybe you´re thinking of the Hellcat.


"The Wildcat never outperformed the Zero, but it won battle after battle nonetheless, and when those battles were over, the war had turned in the direction of the Allies" (The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WW II).

All the Wildcat had to do was hold the line until the Hellcats and Corsairs came into play; this seems to be modeled well enough in UV, and I don't expect CF to undo it.



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 8:01:49 PM)

quote:

All the Wildcat had to do was hold the line until the Hellcats and Corsairs came into play; this seems to be modeled well enough in UV, and I don't expect CF to undo it.


I think Hans is thinking about later model Allied aircraft Joe. Hellcat, Corsair and so on.

This is when the kill ratio got ridiculous. The Zero was still more manuverable, but using the top speed of these new fighters the Allies would come zooming in and shred the Zeros using ¨Boom and Zoom¨tactics. Then climb away. Zeros never had much of a chance against these planes using these tactics.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 8:07:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

All the Wildcat had to do was hold the line until the Hellcats and Corsairs came into play; this seems to be modeled well enough in UV, and I don't expect CF to undo it.


I think Hans is thinking about later model Allied aircraft Joe. Hellcat, Corsair and so on.

This is when the kill ratio got ridiculous. The Zero was still more manuverable, but using the top speed of these new fighters the Allies would come zooming in and shred the Zeros using ¨Boom and Zoom¨tactics. Then climb away. Zeros never had much of a chance against these planes using these tactics.



No Ike, I am most certainly not.

For some of the "funny" history books try reading Bergerud. The Wildcats had already turned the tide long before the second generation Allied fighters arrived in the theater.

The superiority of the Zero over the Wildcat is pure myth.



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/11/2008 10:28:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

This is when the kill ratio got ridiculous. The Zero was still more manuverable, but using the top speed of these new fighters the Allies would come zooming in and shred the Zeros using ¨Boom and Zoom¨tactics. Then climb away. Zeros never had much of a chance against these planes using these tactics.


Wildcat pilots developed the boom and zoom tactics.



jeffs -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/12/2008 4:07:04 PM)

One factor that is hard to model is most zeroes did not have radios. And this partly explains why using zoom and boom and the Thach weave Wildcat pilots often held their own.

My guess is...In theory, if we had to pick one plane in a dogfight where there was more or less equal spotting the zero had the advantage...But wildcat did have advantages as well and all things being equal was not significantly outclassed in total performance (ie, the zero was better, but not devastatingly so). However, the lack of radios probably did degrade group performance, especially as the navy improved its pilot to pilot communications with standardized commands/replies as the war went on.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/12/2008 5:19:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffs

... However, the lack of radios probably did degrade group performance, especially as the navy improved its pilot to pilot communications with standardized commands/replies as the war went on.


It must have been hard for Zeros to coordinate their tactics w/just hand signals.



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/12/2008 7:35:50 PM)

Why are we hijacking the CF wish list thread?  This discussion is also going on in the F4F thread, where it belongs.  To be polite to Justin let this return to it's intended purpose.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/12/2008 8:22:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Why are we hijacking the CF wish list thread?  This discussion is also going on in the F4F thread, where it belongs.  To be polite to Justin let this return to it's intended purpose.


"We" got carried away; here's a link to the latest page of the F4F thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1768251&mpage=2&key=�



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/12/2008 10:02:36 PM)

Saburo Sakai is included in UV however the other two pilots that formed the famous...¨Clean Up Trio¨...are not.

Please include Japanese Aces Toshio Ohta and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa in the game.



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/14/2008 6:27:22 PM)

Back to CF:

I keep finding myself wanting a note pad, or able to make map notations. Honestly both would be nice.

I couldn't imagine juggling multile PBEM games and keeping track of what I am doing. In a competitive game, any minor oversight can be potentially devistating. It is also time consuming to check EVERYTHING when you have lost track of what is going on. I have to name every save game with a general overview of what is going on, and even then I just cover very very general things because if you have too many characters it goes into the next line and screws it up.

So, a notepad is key. Even the most basic notepad would work, just a button that opens up a pad that you can keep notes. A more sophisticated notepad would be better. Formatted like a captains log, with bullet points with the date automatically inputted for the user. Formatting options (bold, font, size), along with being able to PASTE text in. One game let you paste whatever was in the windows notepad (whatever you copied or cut last), and it such a nice feature I wondered why more developers didn'tallow you to do that...especially in text heavy games.

If that was done, this would just be a nice additon. If isn't, it would be a "if your not going to do that, ATLEAST let me.....". Map notes. Either as a part of a seperate map funciton, or a toggable option on the game map.I just want an option as a minimal way to remind myself what and where to look when I come back after dinner, or if 4-5 turns from now it will be time to give orders to (an) asset(s).

I either alt-tab to enter in data to a spreadsheet or txt file, or use a pen and clipboard. Alt-Tabbing is frustrating as you have to go back and forth, back and forth, and the pen and clipboard is....annoying. This is a way to eliminate the need for both. If you can figure out a way to do so more efficently or elegantly that would be perfectly fine too. Only goal here is to let me keep track of things without leaving the game, and without stopping gameplay



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/18/2008 2:24:00 PM)

I would like you to fix the number one problem in the game....namely the cheat the AI gets with regard to CAP.

There is one aspect of the Strategic AI cheating that drives me nuts. I accept that the Tactical AI for both the player and the Strategic AI know how much CAP is committed and the CAP to Escort ration coupled with the morale determines whether or not a given squadron will fly a bombing mission.

The cheat is that the Strategic AI gets to wait until after it has seen the players CAP level to decide what percentage to set for escort while the player has to set his escort percentages while blind to the Strategic AIs CAP level. This guarantees that when you fly no CAP you will get a bombing mission flown against you with 5 Zeros escorting it and if you put up any level of CAP to try to resist the AI sends 100 Zeros against you.

This makes playing against the AI infuriating.

Please make the fix for this outrageous cheat your number one priority.



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/18/2008 3:05:00 PM)

To add to that, they shouldn't be able to see my OOB. The computer should have the same FOW restrictions we face.

In my previous games I've never had a good enough start to send my carriers back for refits and not to fix big huge holes in them.

Within 2 turns of sending 3 back, Japanese starting sailing south of Rabul and Shortland after refusing to send anything larger then a barge out for atleast a month. 

Anyhow, the AI atleast on normal should have full FOW effects as a human player would, in all aspects of the game.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/18/2008 3:18:38 PM)

Please provide the players with real time reporting of operational losses in the combat reports and on the map for transports instead of forcing us to data mine by going to the intel report to see how many operational losses we took each turn and then having to examine every last squadron on the map while attempting to remember how many planes each had before the losses occurred in order to figure out which squadrons suffered losses and how many each suffered.



bigbaba -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/22/2008 4:20:38 PM)

hi everybody,

i dont know if some of you know the great air combat series "Dogfight" on History channel and espacialy the parts about the battle of guadalcanal between marine wildcats and japanese zeros from rabaul.

it seems that the wildcat-pilots had a poor preformance against the zero until midway and then a very good killratio against the zero as they found out the weakness of the zero (no armor and no self sealing tanks) and as they begun to turn and face attacking zeros to use the wildcats superior armor, self sealing tanks and armament or to use the thach weave if attacked by zeros.

by the end of the guadalcanal-campaign, the cactus-airforce had a killratio of 4:1 against the japanese. although not all victims were zeros and some of them were vals, kates, bettys and oscars, the zeros were not able to disturb the marine wildcats shooting down the escorted japanese bombers. in the series dogfight you can perfectly see that all the wildcat pilots immediately turned around and faced attacking zeros and oscars and most of the time with success.

some japanese zero aces like saburo sakai reported that it was damnd hard for them to shoot down marine wildcats at guadalcanal even when the marines were outnumberd by the zeros.

so i go with hans here (and not only because i am from germany too[;)]) that it was madness to put such elite fighter pilots in such flying coffins, espacialy with the poor japanese pilot training system.



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/22/2008 10:34:20 PM)

Hehe join the discussion in the General section Bigbaba. The party is in "Flying Torches". Everyone sort of agreed to take the party in the other thread (s)[:D]



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/22/2008 10:49:54 PM)

I'd just like to re-iterate the need to re-examine sys damage. Frustrating to have a big ship at sea for 5 days, and having to bench it for 5 to 6 times that amount.

An option to keep the TF together instead of having to disband it would be nice as well. Especially when your basing two different types of task forces at the same port. You have to either log which ships were in the group, or make multiple groups to quickly look at the class and then transfer it into the real group. All that work because you want to knock off sys damage faster while keeping them in port to avoid system damage.

Whole process is rather tedious.



RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/23/2008 11:45:06 PM)

Wondering if we can expect some kind of response or a quick update from the team... [&:]

especially curious to get a hazy adumbration when this game will become available.



RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/25/2008 10:05:51 PM)

Pretty helpful would be the option to plot the course of your TFs manually (e.g. by waypoints) rather than have to relay on the fixed track given from the game engine!



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (4/26/2008 3:15:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Pretty helpful would be the option to plot the course of your TFs manually (e.g. by waypoints) rather than have to relay on the fixed track given from the game engine!


Aye. I think this is a feature in the upcoming WitP Adm Edition.




Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (5/12/2008 10:48:38 PM)

Attack aircraft on naval search should be subject to interception by fighters flying CAP.

As it is now, attack aircraft on naval search will even hit aircraft carriers with 100 fighters on CAP with a free pass. No interception at all.



OG_Gleep -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (5/13/2008 3:45:31 AM)

Are they never intercepted at all? Could have sworn there was a chance any plane flying into an area that has cap could be shot down.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.905762