RE: unrealistic air combat... (Full Version)

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



Message

JeffroK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/1/2008 9:07:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Your website seems to link to itself.


Why should this be a problem? I presume you think it is?

Yes, normally you wouldnt use yourself to confirm something you said. They do provide excellent backup in these cases but I wouldnt see this as a guarantee for all cases. In this case, I am confident of my source for the RNZAF Hudson shot down

quote:

I havent yet tried night missions in UV, might give them a bash and see how they go.


Please do, and let us know the results ( as and when you feel it is OK if on PBEM ) IDC.

I set up Scen 1 with ALL aircraft on night missions, the Aussie Hudsons raided Lae but despite having all CV's in 1 hex (The 1st O in Solomons Sea) not one carrier aircraft from either side flew. So no combat results and no Ops losses!!

I'll try some base attacks next.

Dont play PBEM, turned off many years back and I see from these forum that behaviour hasnt changed (Probably guilty myself)





tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/1/2008 10:34:39 PM)

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/1/2008 10:36:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Yes, normally you wouldnt use yourself to confirm something you said. They do provide excellent backup in these cases but I wouldnt see this as a guarantee for all cases. In this case, I am confident of my source for the RNZAF Hudson shot down


The backup here is the cross reference given to an input by another person. Seems ok to me.


quote:

Dont play PBEM, turned off many years back and I see from these forum that behaviour hasnt changed (Probably guilty myself)


Don't blame you at all!



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/1/2008 10:48:55 PM)

quote:

Interesting. Of course you fail to admit that the radar in this A/C was so poor it needed searchlights to assist! See below:-


I did not "fail" to "admit" anything. There's nothing to admit. The P-70 was a p.o.s. The J1N was another p.o.s. The P-70 was the first of the two with airborne radar. It did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light. Considering that it was bascally an A-20 with some cannons, its failure is no great surprise. The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).

quote:

So they did use radar, just not in our period!


No one said otherwise. The early J1Ns didn't have radar. Of the intercepts previously mentioned, the two B-17s reasonably construed as shot down by a fighter at night were taken down by radarless a.c. directed by searchlight beam.

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.



JeffroK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 2:45:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.


Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you can have the thread all to yourself.[8|]



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 4:55:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.



Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you can have the thread all to yourself.


Tocaff is correct JeffK. Serious, I couldnīt read a word from that text in that font color.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 12:48:00 PM)

Thank you Ike.  There was no intent on my part other than letting somebody know that to share what they think we must be able to see it in order to read it.  To many thin skinned people around taking offense where there is none......





fuelli -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 7:04:11 PM)

No offense but I had a problem with reading it as well.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 8:20:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I did not "fail" to "admit" anything.


You denigrated the Irvings means of "targeting" whilst leaving out that the P-70 had similar problems. That's an admission failure to me.

quote:


The P-70 ... did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light.


That's not what the article I printed said.... , you can read ?

quote:

The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).


Hmm, are you upset about something?

quote:

No one said otherwise.


You implied it by ommission.

quote:

Of the intercepts previously mentioned, the two B-17s reasonably construed as shot down by a fighter at night were taken down by radarless a.c. directed by searchlight beam.


Did I say they were not?

quote:

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.


The later purpose built Night Fighter shot down several B-29's. I doubt those crews ( or their families ) would agree your "assessment".





YUP -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 8:29:11 PM)

real jap air losses are 332[aproxamite]at midway



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 8:41:57 PM)

It appears to me that whilst JeffK's "bright green" paragraph was rather garish, it was certainly NOT unreadable. Those who could be bothered to try to read it, could.

Tocaff, I am suprised. You actually sent a polite reply to IKE99!

Shame on you for the snide remark at the end though.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/2/2008 10:03:44 PM)

Maybe I'm big enough to be polite if I try. 

I have nothing against Ike, or anyone else here, as long as it's kept respectful by all parties.

The last remark was not meant as a cheap shot, just trying to point out that my remark about the color of the print had no barbs to it. We (all of us) tend to get a little touchy at times.



borner -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/3/2008 12:08:48 AM)

YUP, that sounda about right, but most Jap losses at Midway were from getting blow up on flight decks before they were able to take off however.



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/3/2008 12:30:20 AM)

quote:

You denigrated the Irvings means of "targeting" whilst leaving out that the P-70 had similar problems. That's an admission failure to me.


Not in the least. Neither a failure nor an admission of anything. My reply was to the claim that the Japanese fielded a NF first. Nothing more. Anyone making more of it is a fool with an agenda.

quote:

You implied it by ommission.


(Edited for the sake of civility).

Well, I also omitted mentioning a whole universe of things, so what other things did I "imply" by virtue of not stating them outright?

I'm just curious about the parameters of your logical system here. Is it a kind of Dadaist logic in which wholly unrelated things are presumed to be causally juxtaposed because of the disharmonious or possibly absurd imagery they evoke? Or is it more like a kind of Postmodernist Logic in which the heretofore complete absence of any specific mention, by myself, of Michelle Foucault is proof of Foucault's universal-pervasiveness?

quote:

The later purpose built Night Fighter shot down several B-29's.


Anyone could get lucky I suppose, assuming that they, in fact, did that. According to a number of sources (here I offer "Aircraft of WWII" by Stewart Wilson) "The Gekko was initially employed in the South-west and Central pacific where it was effective agianst the B-24 Liberator but not fast enough to trouble the B-29 Superfortress when employed in the home dfence role. Most ended their days as Kamikaze aircraft."

By which I take it that Wilson (like several other sources) regards the JnN1-Sa as strategically ineffectual against B-29s. In my view the Gekko was a poor design and not terribly good even as a night fighter. In part because its successes were few and far between, and also because pretty much every source regards it as a poor entry for the type. But as I noted before. A B-17 here. A B-24 there. Anyone can get lucky.




RGIJN -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/8/2008 9:53:10 AM)

just a little side note on "unrealistic things": why it is impossible in UV to deploy B25 Mitchell bombers on YORKTOWN class carriers...?!?! It was indeed done in RL [;)] And that it was done is more than sufficient documented...

very excited what this gets up [8D]




fuelli -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/8/2008 11:43:28 AM)

I think that exactly reflects the fundamental "problem" when comparing PC games to reality.
Its a fixed code with a given flexibility that can only represent a limited reality. And limited in this case means that things happened in RL that can not be done in the game and things happen in the game that maybe never happened in real life. The fact that things have been done x-times in RL will lead to the fact that these things will be done x times x in the game or maybe never. Fact is that this game wonīt change anymore. Take it as it is or leave it.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/8/2008 1:04:30 PM)

We all have various "issues" with this and other games.  Maybe we should try to remember that it's just a game and there's no way, at present time, to satisfy everybody's quest for their version of reality.

Once time travel, if possible, becomes a reality then you can travel back and participate (if you dare) in the actual events and really see what the reality of the day was.  Until then we only have verbal (fewer all the time) and written accounts from the vets who lived it.

Enjoy the game for what it is and either live with it's shortfalls or search for another option that better suits you.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/8/2008 1:12:53 PM)

Shooting down a B-29 was a daunting task for the virtually green Japanese fighter pilots of the day.  Maybe the planes that the Japanese used were better than you think and the pilots stunk. 

A B-29 formation was loaded with, computer (yep) controlled by the flight engineer from the dorsal (top) turret, .50 cal mgs that could be deadly as hell.  The Japanese were decreasingly willing to engage these formations as I showed with the flight log from a crewman posted in the WITP forum.

The downside for these planes was when mining the inland sea a single bullet into 1 of the bomb bays could result in a fireball in the sky.

Also the listed speed of the B-29 was, if my shot memory serves, about 320 mph cruising.  Anybody who flew them would laugh at that # and say that the loaded (underpowered) planes flew much slower than that. 



borner -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/10/2008 4:38:24 PM)

 I think it's pretty much agreed that that F4u's are just a tad over-rated. How much of a difference would it make if the US player agreed to move every other land based unit that arrived or upgraded to F4u's to rear areas such as the Santa Cruz bases or further south?



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/11/2008 1:43:02 AM)

Taking fighter squadrons out of the game isn't the answer because then you won't be able to CAP bases or escort attacks.



borner -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (8/11/2008 4:47:56 AM)

yeah, good point. I just figure there has to be some answer to give the US an advantage but to take some of the teeth out of the sidewinder armed F4U's out there.


Brian



borner -> I hope Martix reads this (8/12/2008 3:02:56 AM)

I read a while back someone talking about an air-to-air result in WiTP that was waaaaay past what could/should normally happen.... allow me to add one to the list.

Air combat at Lea Lea
19 F4u's vs 140+ zeros 61 Oscar, 65 nick, 21 tony fighters.....  losses...59 zeros, 16 Oscar, 18 nice, 7 tony. US losses, 1 fighter. There is no way they even carried enough ammo to shoot down that many. I could not believe it. I admittedly have not played may games to this point (7/43),  but this is a shock! At the risk of re-stating what has been said before.. what the ___ were the people at Matrix smoking when they came up with these air-to-air values. I know really understand why players say if you do not go for auto-victory as Japan, you cannot win. What a disappointment. I would love to hear someone justify how this in any way can be near historical.



Ike99 -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/12/2008 3:06:48 AM)

quote:

Air combat at Lea Lea
19 F4u's vs 140+ zeros 61 Oscar, 65 nick, 21 tony fighters..... losses...59 zeros, 16 Oscar, 18 nice, 7 tony. US losses, 1 fighter. There is no way they even carried enough ammo to shoot down that many. I could not believe it.


I think the Corsair is definately superior to the Japanese fighters, but as you mention, Iīm of the opinion they are getting to many shots. They are modelled as carrying too much ammunition. I think this is the major problem with them.



borner -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/12/2008 3:17:10 AM)

I agree Ike, it is far better. No contest. In my view I would take an f4u over a p-51 7 days a week in fact. However, I do not care how good the plane is, when outnumbered 9-1, they are not going to get a 10-1 kill ratio, not to mention 80-1.



ILCK -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/12/2008 1:49:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I agree Ike, it is far better. No contest. In my view I would take an f4u over a p-51 7 days a week in fact. However, I do not care how good the plane is, when outnumbered 9-1, they are not going to get a 10-1 kill ratio, not to mention 80-1.



The F4U is sort of a game ender. Once I get one squadron I'm good to go because it will, overnight, change the kill ratios in the air combat world so dramatically. The game handles the performance gap between the Zero and F4F poorly (your F4F's are nearly useless) but it handles the F4U - Zero gap even more poorly.



tocaff -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/12/2008 3:54:23 PM)

It would seem to me that the more people play the game the more aware they become of it's weaknesses.  Isn't that true for every game that you've ever delved into deeply?

So if they were to remodel the aircraft and their respective abilities the playing field would change.  If the naval abilities were examined and tweaked that too would change the game.

I wonder what changes CF will offer and what bugs will be brought to the table.



Joe D. -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/12/2008 9:45:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

...I wonder what changes CF will offer and what bugs will be brought to the table.


There will always be bugs, but at least CF won't be an add-on to UV; they will have to go straight to Grigsby's source code to correct/tweak it and not just patch it.




Tankerace -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/13/2008 1:55:26 AM)

If you guys have specific, repeatable bugs with UV that you'd like fixed in CF, send me a save at justinp@matrixgames.com.

In the save, please include the following:

Game type (Human vs. Jap AI, etc)
Steps to Reproduce
Description of the bug.

If we just get heresay of the bug we really have no way to fix it. I can tell my testers to try and reproduce it BUT, if one of you has a save that already reproduces it, it will be a timesaver.

So please, if there are any UV bug saves, please send them to me. We can then see if a similar bug exists in CF.



borner -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/13/2008 3:09:47 AM)

yes, there are always bugs, and things that could be made better. Overall UV is very fun up to about Feb or March 43. After that, as ILCK points out, everything changes. If you just up the values of p-40's ane f4f's, turn down the later allied fighters a bit, thing would be much better. Hopefully in carrier force this will be addressed.



Joe D. -> RE: I hope Martix reads this (8/13/2008 10:14:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

... If we just get heresay of the bug we really have no way to fix it. I can tell my testers to try and reproduce it BUT, if one of you has a save that already reproduces it, it will be a timesaver.


Remodeling some of the Allied aircraft isn't a bug, but it's common knowledge among UV players that the F4U is almost invincible vs. the A6, Oscar, and other enemy a/c.

But the real bug is the loading bug for fast transports, and that's not heresay; anyone who has played UV has seen this bug time and time again: the TF will either load troops, supplies, or sometimes neither w/o any discernable pattern. Even routine transports don't always load troops and supplies, compelling some UV players to load these TFs one ship at a time, and then combine them into one TF; very time consuming.

Just ask tocaff.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 [13] 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375