RE: Allied fighters suck

RE: Allied fighters suck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:28:44 PM)
Some of you seem to feel a need to blame the player, just like the automakers who built defective cars and then claimed it was the driver's fault. I can't say for sure that my tactics aren't the problem, though I have tried various techniques such as layering fighters. But I find it interesting that some of you recommend swamping the Japanese with Allied fighters, which makes you wonder why the Allies needed P-39s and P-47s when they should have built hordes of cheaper P-40s for an aerial human wave assault. Given expanded Japanese aircraft production and Allied replacement rates of 30 Hurricanes and P-38s a month, I'll be curious to see how the Allies swamp the opposition. As for experience, the advantage of second-generation Allied fighters was that they could give mass-produced pilots a fighting chance. A less-experienced pilot in a better airplane should be able to hold his own against a more experienced pilot in an inferior aircraft. It's as if WITP bought Axis propaganda about the Cult of the Ace. Sorry, experience may be the most important factor, but it's not the only one. In any event, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the game models the dive-and-zoom tactics of Allied fighters. Has anyone seen messages that P-38s are diving, attacking, and then climbing back up altitude for another attac?

LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:43:04 PM)
[8\|] Noone is saying that a player benefits by seperating tactical implications from strategic ones and vice versa. But to answer a post theres no problem to limit an answer to a smaller focus. The OP came to the conclusion that allied fighters are underrated in A2A combat. quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT It's October '42, and I have a gaggle of P-38, P-40 and Hurricane squadrons in Burma. They are being shot out of the sky by Oscars, Tojos and a few Zeroes. I've tried flying at high altitudes. I've tried flying everyone at high altitude. I've tried flying the P-38s and Hurricane IICs at 30,000 feet, and the P-40s and Hurricane IIBs at 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Same results. The P-38s bounce the Oscars, and then the Oscars get on the tail of the P-38s and shoot them down. I won't even describe what happens to P-39s. I wonder how to answer this misassumption by citing strategy. setting CAP alt, assigning commanders, coordinating airstrikes, performance of AC and their respective advantages and disadvantages to other AC,... -> tactics concentration of forces, managing supplies, airbase facilities and size, availability of reserves, assigning units to different theatres of operations,... -> strategy You need both for a good game, no need to point anyones nose to the obvious. [;)]

HansBolter -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:49:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron [8\|] Noone is saying that a player benefits by seperating tactical implications from strategic ones and vice versa. But to answer a post theres no problem to limit an answer to a smaller focus. The OP came to the conclusion that allied fighters are underrated in A2A combat. quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT It's October '42, and I have a gaggle of P-38, P-40 and Hurricane squadrons in Burma. They are being shot out of the sky by Oscars, Tojos and a few Zeroes. I've tried flying at high altitudes. I've tried flying everyone at high altitude. I've tried flying the P-38s and Hurricane IICs at 30,000 feet, and the P-40s and Hurricane IIBs at 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Same results. The P-38s bounce the Oscars, and then the Oscars get on the tail of the P-38s and shoot them down. I won't even describe what happens to P-39s. I wonder how to answer this misassumption by citing strategy. setting CAP alt, assigning commanders, coordinating airstrikes, performance of AC and their respective advantages and disadvantages to other AC,... -> tactics concentration of forces, managing supplies, airbase facilities and size, availability of reserves, assigning units to different theatres of operations,... -> strategy You need both for a good game, no need to point anyones nose to the obvious. [;)] An excellent non sequitur. Thanks for your contribution.

LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:55:25 PM)
youre welcome. [:D]

DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:08:48 PM)
Lobaron, I'm askng you a simple question: Have you, or have you not, seen evidence that Allied fighters are able to utilize their advantages in aerial combat? Japanese fighters are able to utilize their superior maneuverability in WITP. But have you seen P-38s use their superior speed to attack, break off, and reattack Oscars? Or dive on Oscars and then zoom back up into the fight? The most I see is a message that a P-40 is diving away, but it doesn't seem to come back into the fight.

Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:09:12 PM)
Sir James Wolfe (18th Century British General - led forces on CONUSA etc ) once replied to another general who recommended that a particular junior officer be given command of an expedition as he had been on many campaigns that "If a donkey was on 20 campaigns it still wouldn't make it a general". If some Allied players can defeat the Japanese air force over Burma and some Japanese players can defeat the Allied air force over Burma during the same time period it does appear that the difference is unlikely to be due to a bug borking one side's fighters and much more likely to do with the actual player competencies. I would also suggest that the sort of player who does well is one who is open to learning and open to the fact that their performance is probably flawed. One who has other views is likely to remain at the level of that donkey, plodding along and uncomprehending why horses seem to move so much faster when, to outward appearances, they have the same number of legs. I'll give you an example from the not-so-distant game design past... Once upon a time during the development of the sequel to a game which won numerous Strategy Game of the Year awards from internet sites and magazines there was a desire to provide some really testing scenarios for players. These scenarios were fictional and designed from the ground up to have no margin for error and require multiple playthroughs for victory to be achieved as even small errors would have cascading effects. In the first scenario a German tank force had to withstand a numerically superior Allied tank force on open terrain whilst in vastly inferior tanks. In the second a Battalion-sized Italian infantry force backed by 3 self-propelled guns had to hold a dispersed position in the face of an SMG-equipped Soviet regiment with requisite artillery support and over a company of tanks - each tank vastly superior to the Italian self-propelled guns which couldn't penetrate the frontal armour except at point blank range. In the last scenario a mechanised infantry force had to assault into a town defended by infantry with many rocket propelled grenades and several tanks. The roads were roadblocked and the attackers had no artillery. In addition there was a strict time limit. In any case these scenarios were designed and play-tested. Over the course of the play testing the tank scenario was never won or drawn, the Italian scenario was never won or drawn and only 1 tester managed to draw the MOUT (Military operations Urban Terrain ) scenario. There was a bit of consternation and it was decided to dumb down the scenarios and give them to another player to see if he could win the dumbed down scenarios on a first play-through. This player took a look at the dumbed down scenarios with reduced enemy forces and felt they were too easy. He asked for the enemy forces in each scenario to be increased above the original levels in spite of the strong advice from the designers and playtesters that even the dumbed down scenarios were extremely difficult and only just drawable and winnable by testers who'd played them to death numerous times. In any case this player got his wish only after promising to play the dumbed down versions "once you lose" the hardened versions. In the tank scenario he managed to find microterrain and exploited it to lure the enemy into reverse slope infantry tank-killer teams and mobbing the surviving enemy with flanking mobs of tiny panzers. Major victory. In the italian scenario he decided he had too few forces to effectively defend and decided to attack. He managed to push his Bn through the first two Bns of Soviet forces, killing all the enemy tanks with infantry teams in return for just one of his own before the arrival of the third enemy Bn "teleporting" into position in the midst of his own Bn caused havoc. This one ended in a slight win and a realisation by the game designer that he couldn't teleport units onto the middle of a map into positions he assumed the enemy would never reach. Instead he started designing some route march algorithms to allow formations to enter games from map edges and make their way, in a timely fashion, to where they were supposed to be at a given time. In the MOUT scenario a massive dismounted assault with heavy tank support made headway while the exploitation of smoke and dust from destroyed buildings allowed the creation of ersatz smokescreens to screen lateral movement from enemy forces and massive concentration of force along a crucial axis. Again enemy reinforcements teleported into a "safe area" far behind their lines, deeper than any other player had reach, but right into the midst of the attacker's formations. In any case this one was still a clear win. The biggest thing which aided this win was the player's use of the purposeful destruction of buildings to "create" dust screens along a defended route which he then drive through while mounted before dismounting BEHIND the enemy front line and assaulting backwards into the back of the enemy front line, utterly destroying it. Why do I give these examples? Simple.... Those scenarios were deemed unwinnable because no-one had won one despite massive amounts of testing. They were the Kobayashi Marus of that game. Yet, when given to a different player ( not necessarily the best player of that game but just one whose approach was very different than any of the developers or playtesters ) new strategems were thought of which not only yielded victory but yielded extremely decisive victories. I understand the desire to think that one is competent at a lot of things and that any difference in outcome must be due to the game and not due to one's own failures and errors BUT the reality is that the majority of the time repeated failure is due to the player. The best players ( of chess or any other strategy game ) are not those who don't make mistakes or who think they are amazing but those who utterly accept they are flawed and make mistakes and who, even after a significant victory, will examine what they did in order to find ANY mistakes. If an operation was a smashing success most people go "I'm awesome". This leads to mediocrity. Instead you should say" Well, I succeeded and got a 10 to 1 kill rate. Why didn't I do better?" and then ruthlessly examine where your losses came from, what missed opportunities you had and next time try to get 11 or 12 to 1. Psychologically it is more comforting to blame the game but that doesn't mean it is realistic.

Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:10:27 PM)
quote: You need both for a good game, no need to point anyones nose to the obvious. With the discourse here the obvious appears to be exceedingly non-obvious to many.... [8D]

DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:17:27 PM)
Amazing that we've had two big patches to fix major flaws like artillery Death Stars and pilot experience. But any suggestion that the air combat model might be flawed brings on innuendo that the player must be at fault. For the first time, I understand the meaning of "fanboy".

LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT Lobaron, I'm askng you a simple question: Have you, or have you not, seen evidence that Allied fighters are able to utilize their advantages in aerial combat? Japanese fighters are able to utilize their superior maneuverability in WITP. But have you seen P-38s use their superior speed to attack, break off, and reattack Oscars? Or dive on Oscars and then zoom back up into the fight? The most I see is a message that a P-40 is diving away, but it doesn't seem to come back into the fight. When you see the "bounce" information in the combat replay the attacker uses his superior altitude to engage. Since game machanics handle aircombat in a way that a pilot after a successful bounce tries to regain altitude up to his initial level this can be repeated more than once with a single pilot during a single engagement. And, yes, I have already seen this happen on many occasions. What I cannot answer is how the A2A combat engine handles non successful bounces or how it calculates that a bouncing fighter is forced into a turn fight by another enemy pilot. But this happens. Again, as I tried to point out in my earlier post, numbers are crucial here. Its much easier to be forced into a turn fight when the opponent has superior numbers. Think of it as a wingman that engages the plane that tried to bounce the wing leader. quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 quote: You need both for a good game, no need to point anyones nose to the obvious. With the discourse here the obvious appears to be exceedingly non-obvious to many.... [8D] True, no offense man. [:)]

Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:39:28 PM)
LOL! I've been called a fanboy. Brilliant. DicedT, next time before you post I suggest you actually know what you're talking about. I am a trenchant critic of areas where AE falls down. I also feel that portions of the team exhibit a major "Not Invented Here Syndrome" with suggestions for change coming from players. If a problem wasn't spotted by the team or a solution wasn't imagined by them then several members of the team ( but not all ) are more likely to shoot it down than to engage constructively with the poster and work constructively for improvement. On the other hand... to say that the most common reason for poor outcome is poor play is simply objective reality. It is true for WiTP and every other aspect of life. If pointing out objective reality causes people who don't know any of the background to things to label one a fanboy then so be it. I must admit though that you are so out of touch with the background here and so embarrassingly ill-informed with your name-throwing that it is impossible to take insult. Instead�you gave me a good laugh. Just to be clear: I don't think the A2A model is not flawed. I think it still has great room for improvement. On the other hand that it is flawed doesn't mean that's the explanation for your inability to win the air war. The model is equally flawed for ALL players. Some players win the air war over Burma despite those flaws, some don't. Those who don't win the air war don't fail because of the flaws in the air model, they fail because of the flaws in their own play. I didn't want to say it quite so directly but, unfortunately, you haven't seemed to be able to discern my point when it was any more oblique. So, is the air model flawed? Yes. Does it explain your individual failure to win the air war? No.

Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:46:38 PM)
LoBaron, None taken. I think that the common view nowadays that disagreeing vociferously is somehow "rude" is crazy. Feel free to agree or disagree vociferously. So long as the discourse is intelligent and constructive it's all good.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:41:27 PM)
There seems to be a lot of air combat in Burma. If you are the allies vs. the AI and play quite Chine 42 & 42 are really tough as I think the AI moves many more planes to Burma. It alos seems to attack airfields that have bombers based at them so if you are looking ofr a fight base some bombers and you good squadrons t a single base and set hem on 60% cap. You will build up alot of experience. I always seem to run short of hurricanes though. Moving some US army squadrons is always a good move. I converted a bunch of 7th AF ones and shipped them over. They weren't doing much in the pacific anyway and they have a pretty high replacement rate.

FatR -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:42:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter What all those who defend game designs that give huge advantages to the almighty "experienced" Japanese pilots seem to overlook time and time again is the simple equation that if the Japanese lost all those skilled pilots leading to the demise of Japan, it was those very same "underrated by every dev" inexperinced Allied pilots who shot down these same seemingly invincible Japanese "experienced" pilots. If the experienced Allied pilots didn't come along until the Japanese had nothing but inexperienced pilots left than it couldn't have been anyone else but the inexperienced Allied pilots who shot down the experienced Japanese pilots. Not quite as invincible as the myth would seem to portray them to have been. Any game that cannot model the experienced pilots being vanquished by the inexperienced pilots fails as a proper model. You're wrong, and this aspect of the game is modelled properly. A small cadre of experienced Allied pilots is responsible for practically all of their air successes in 1942. Inexperienced ones contributed to the overall attrition (at disproportional cost to themselves) but achieved no victories.

Smeulders -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT Amazing that we've had two big patches to fix major flaws like artillery Death Stars and pilot experience. But any suggestion that the air combat model might be flawed brings on innuendo that the player must be at fault. For the first time, I understand the meaning of "fanboy". No one has managed to beat the artillery dead stars, that's why there is a patch. In some AARs Japanese players took horrendous losses to Hurricanes over India, that's why people are saying that the problem might be you, not the allied planes and the combat model.

DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:56:28 PM)
Nemo, next time try to answer the question directly instead of behaving as a pompous blowhard. Citing Sir James Wolfe has nothing to do with the P-38's historical performance. Citing a magazine game from years ago has nothing to with modeling dogfights. You admit that the air model might be flawed, and then you weasel out of it by saying that the probable cause must be the player. Which tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. What you've essentially said is that it is up to the player to find a way to game the system until he achieves success. What I'm saying is that this is supposed to be an historical simulation, and using what I believe to be historical tactics, does not produce historical results. It may be that I'm not using correct tactics. But considering that none of us can state definitively how the air combat model works, it seems just as likely that there is some aspect of the model that needs to be fixed.

Sardaukar -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:06:48 PM)
We must always remember that game engine is based Gary Grigsby's code (and others in 2by3). AE is not new game, but major enhancement of WitP code. In WitP, major factors in air-to-air combat were plane speed and pilot experience. In AE, there are LOT more factors, including altitude bands and different skill areas. This achieves way more historical results in A2A combat. And experience still counts, you cannot count on 40exp pilots in P-38Js taking on 70exp pilots in A6M2s (even when former plane is way more advanced) successfully. They may do, if you examine plane information and set your altitudes accordingly. One problem is when you escort bombers. Fighter escort flies 2k ft above bombers, so if you set bombers to 6k, your escorting P-38s will fly at 8k. Guess who rules low altitude turning fight. Zeroes will eat them alive, if they also have experience edge. Successful bombing campaign needs to have opposition fighters neutralized. To do this, you need to fight on your terms, not opposition. First bring in your bombers in altitudes where your escorts enjoy superiority. Combine that with fighter sweeps with same altitude advantage. Allies can have good results when remembering to check the basics..."what is the best altitude for my fighters based on opposition".

FatR -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT Some of you seem to feel a need to blame the player, just like the automakers who built defective cars and then claimed it was the driver's fault. I can't say for sure that my tactics aren't the problem, though I have tried various techniques such as layering fighters. But I find it interesting that some of you recommend swamping the Japanese with Allied fighters, which makes you wonder why the Allies needed P-39s and P-47s when they should have built hordes of cheaper P-40s for an aerial human wave assault. Given expanded Japanese aircraft production and Allied replacement rates of 30 Hurricanes and P-38s a month, I'll be curious to see how the Allies swamp the opposition. But in RL, Allies did build hordes of cheaper P-40s and Hurricanes, even knowing beforehand that they are inferior. And swamping is what was done in RL, too. Both by crushing Japanese bases with overwhelming force and by gradual attrition. Both in Europe and in the Pacific Allies gained the consistent advantage in quality only after attriting the enemy through superior numbers. quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT As for experience, the advantage of second-generation Allied fighters was that they could give mass-produced pilots a fighting chance. A less-experienced pilot in a better airplane should be able to hold his own against a more experienced pilot in an inferior aircraft. It's as if WITP bought Axis propaganda about the Cult of the Ace. Sorry, experience may be the most important factor, but it's not the only one. Allies won the air in WW II by employing relatively small numbers of highly trained pilots. It is just that their relatively small numbers of highly trained pilots eventually became much, much bigger than German or Japanese numbers. And experience is not the only factor in AE. quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT In any event, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the game models the dive-and-zoom tactics of Allied fighters. Has anyone seen messages that P-38s are diving, attacking, and then climbing back up altitude for another attac? In RL, effectiveness of such attempts against fighters was extremely poor (barring very inexperienced enemy pilots), and generally either fighters that started a combat "high and fast" ended it "low and slow", or the side that performed the initial bounce disengaged immediately after that. Boom-and-zoom was a tactic for surprise attacks against enemies that hadn't noticed you yet and maybe picking apart escorted bomber formations.

DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:20:31 PM)
What would really help is if we could say definitively say how the air combat model works. I love WITP, but like most Grigsby games, it seems like we have to watch the combat results and then try to deduce from them how the combat models work.

Shark7 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:28:05 PM)
In my experience, if you are an Allied only player, please play as Japan for a while before saying that your fighters are the only ones that don't perform to excpectations. Trust me, my early war fighters can't down a paper airplane, much less a Buffalo or Warhawk. The equipment does make a difference. I modded in the FW-190 which actually has less performance than the Ki-43 but better armament. Swapping a squadron from Oscars to FW-190s immediately made a difference in the ability of that squadron to record kills. It seems to me that pilot experience and not using obsolete equipment are equally important on air ops. It is also vitally important to use the sweep mission to gain air superiority. Fighters on sweep missions are going over the base looking for a dogfight, on escort they are severely handicapped by being forced to stay close to the bombers...fighters are more vulnerable on escort for that reason. Another good tactic is not to directly attack the target base, but rather the surrounding bases so that you can draw off a small number of the cap fighters. The advantage to this is being able to engage only a small portion of the main base cap, slowly wearing them down through attrition. Brute force is not always the best option. [;)]

Miller -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:39:03 PM)
Playing as the Japs in my game its Nov 42, I would guess the fighter kill ratio has been 3:2 in my favour over Burma. However in a battle of attrition there is only one winner.....

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:42:58 PM)
Wait until you go against the jap carriers. Its even worst. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT It's October '42, and I have a gaggle of P-38, P-40 and Hurricane squadrons in Burma. They are being shot out of the sky by Oscars, Tojos and a few Zeroes. I've tried flying at high altitudes. I've tried flying everyone at high altitude. I've tried flying the P-38s and Hurricane IICs at 30,000 feet, and the P-40s and Hurricane IIBs at 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Same results. The P-38s bounce the Oscars, and then the Oscars get on the tail of the P-38s and shoot them down. I won't even describe what happens to P-39s. I know the P-38 wasn't a wonder plane, but it should have some capability to fight Oscars. This concerns me a lot because the Allies do not receive many advanced fighter aircraft until 1944. Until then, the older aircraft - plus P-38s and Spitfires - are all they have. Looking at the aircraft data, Japanese aircraft are always more maneuverable, which seems to be the only factor in the WITP air combat model. Which makes me wonder how the Allied air forces managed to win in real life. One thing I have noticed is that Allied fighters die like flies when flying offensive fighter sweeps or bomber escort. They don't do quite as badly when flying CAP. Yet even on CAP, P-38s, P-40s and Hurricanes can only bounce bounce Oscars once before the Oscars get on their tail. The WITP air combat model doesn't seem to factor in dive-and-zoom tactics by heavier, faster Allied fighters. I love playing WITP, but there is something badly wrong with the air combat system.

witpqs -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:51:44 PM)
Name that movie: [image]local://upfiles/14248/A3A79BF5166E437BBBC3E37B8F0B6701.jpg[/image]

witpqs -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 5:08:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DicedT What would really help is if we could say definitively say how the air combat model works. I love WITP, but like most Grigsby games, it seems like we have to watch the combat results and then try to deduce from them how the combat models work.� Matrix is under contract obligation to Grigsby to never release that level of inside-the-code detail. That's been stated before on these forums in relation to similar requests.

oldman45 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 5:17:37 PM)
According to the history of the army air force, 1942 was not a great year for the allies in air combat. The allies would hold their own but with losses. Once 1943 rolls around and the squadrons have more experienced pilots, better support services, and better planes you see the shift of power. The Japanese pilots were much more experienced than the allies but they had a very poor system of training in a war time footing. The games that I have played I think models this fairly well. I accept the fact that I am going to take losses in 41 & 42. By the time I am into late 42 and early 43 I am taking the fight to the Japanese. Their great pilots are gone and the experience level of their bomber and fighter squadrons is down. I guess I have done 3 or 4 AE games so far to mid 43 and the results have always been the same. 42 you have to suck it up and 43 its payback time [;)] Allies won the air in WW II by employing relatively small numbers of highly trained pilots. It is just that their relatively small numbers of highly trained pilots eventually became much, much bigger than German or Japanese numbers. And experience is not the only factor in AE I am not sure I agree with this and I am wondering if you could explain this a little more. Maybe its the wording but I believe the Allies achieved air superiority by; 1) A more robust training program that provided better "trained" pilots to the squadrons 2) Better planes that eventually overwhelmed their opponent. 3) Developing the Pratt and Whitney R2800 and Rolls Royce Merlin engines and using the Browning 50 caliber Mg. [;)]

LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 5:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Name that movie: [image]local://upfiles/14248/A3A79BF5166E437BBBC3E37B8F0B6701.jpg[/image] Damn it no idea. But good one. [:D]

FatR -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 7:41:04 PM)
quote: I am not sure I agree with this and I am wondering if you could explain this a little more. Maybe its the wording but I believe the Allies achieved air superiority by; 1) A more robust training program that provided better "trained" pilots to the squadrons 2) Better planes that eventually overwhelmed their opponent. 3) Developing the Pratt and Whitney R2800 and Rolls Royce Merlin engines and using the Browning 50 caliber Mg. [;)] Simply put, overall economic superiority of Allies and miscalculations on the part of Axis (primarily Germany, no realistically possible Japanese approach to their pilot training program had a chance of making a real difference, as opposing to delaying the inevitable by a few months) allowed Allies to put much more planes and trained pilots on the frontlines starting from late 1942. This wasn't achieved by lower training standards, compared to the enemy (wartime pilots on all sides lacked in comparison to pre-war veterans), but by greater overall size of training programs. This Allied superiority imposed the unacceptable rate of pilot attrition on Luftwaffe and IJN/IJA, so their pilot quality plummeted during 1944. Arrival of new Allied planes was an important factor but not the most important, in fact, the tide in Europe had turned decisively when Germans still had equal or better planes.

LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 8:01:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: I am not sure I agree with this and I am wondering if you could explain this a little more. Maybe its the wording but I believe the Allies achieved air superiority by; 1) A more robust training program that provided better "trained" pilots to the squadrons 2) Better planes that eventually overwhelmed their opponent. 3) Developing the Pratt and Whitney R2800 and Rolls Royce Merlin engines and using the Browning 50 caliber Mg. [;)] Simply put, overall economic superiority of Allies and miscalculations on the part of Axis (primarily Germany, no realistically possible Japanese approach to their pilot training program had a chance of making a real difference, as opposing to delaying the inevitable by a few months) allowed Allies to put much more planes and trained pilots on the frontlines starting from late 1942. This wasn't achieved by lower training standards, compared to the enemy (wartime pilots on all sides lacked in comparison to pre-war veterans), but by greater overall size of training programs. This Allied superiority imposed the unacceptable rate of pilot attrition on Luftwaffe and IJN/IJA, so their pilot quality plummeted during 1944. Arrival of new Allied planes was an important factor but not the most important, in fact, the tide in Europe had turned decisively when Germans still had equal or better planes. Nice put. The allies won the war because of severals factors but one of the most important was: Industrialised nations and production output. Simple as that. Japan for example (it is less obvious for Germany) had serious disadvantages in the following points (always referring to industrial capability, not the culture itself): - Raw materials - Educated academics (from the technician that developes the plans to the mechanic that keeps the plane operational) - resulting industrial output - manpower - all points that result to those four above reasons like pilot training, building new airbases quick enough, coping with the raw material consumption level, bearing with the higher percentage of casualties compared to total population, you name it. Germanys industry was steamrolled by the allied counter (which came fast and was obvious even in 1941, in BoB the third reich produced less planes than the British alone) and Japan was never in the state to achieve victory by a war of attrition from the start.

Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 8:02:48 PM)
DicedT, Couple of points: 1. It is often of little value to tell someone something when they don't want to hear. Thus I often point the direction and let them figure it out themselves. 2. I never said it was a magazine game... See the above point about people being open to receiving information. As to being a weasel etc... No, I regret to say I'm simply someone who tried to show you that your firmly held belief that something, anything other than you lies at fault here might be wrong. Unfortunately you aren't open to such an interpretation but, instead, fall to the level of insulting those who present it. Let's be clear here.... If your level of openness in this discussion is the same as your level of openness to examining your play then you cannot expect to improve significantly. As to the James Wolfe point having no bearing on this. Sadly for you it IS the central point and the answer to your question - albeit not the answer you seek. Sometimes when we ask a question we have an idea what we want the answer to be and ignore and deride those answers which are not "the ones we want". This is unfortunate. So, the James Wolfe attribution and the example I gave you deal specifically with the issue of expectation and playing without learning. Those are the two key issues which are central to your motivation in this line of questioning and to your failure over Burma. It is regrettable that you choose to view an oblique way of dealing with this designed to: a) avoid you feeling personally attacked by clearly attributing cause and effect and b) make you reflect a little and kickstart some improvement as being an attack on you but as Wittgenstein once said. "We see things not as those things are but as we are (or want them to be )". Since you don't want to accept any answer other than the one your question is designed to draw out you must shoot those messengers with different viewpoints. That's a human failing. That you also introduce rudeness in doing so is a personal failing. Open your mind to alternate viewpoints and explanations and realise that there's a wealth of experience here, much of it exceeding your ( or my ) level of ability and insight into specific areas.

Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 8:17:37 PM)
LoBaron, Within the air combat model there is no attempt to differentiate between different doctrines of employment of energy fighters and manoeuvre fighters nor is there an attempt to allow for the different tactical doctrines employed by these two types of fighters. Speed and manoeuvre are used as proxies for the above but they are rather imperfect proxies obviously. Given the lack of doctrinal modelling there can be no interplay of the doctrines nor any attempt by energy fighters to "fight on their terms" nor on manoeuvre fighter to "fight on their terms". Instead we have two highly biased "phases" to the fight. The initial phase is biased in terms of favouring speed differentials until the first pass is finished. Once that's done there's an absence of the extension phase for the energy fighter and the acceptance of a second phase of combat ( assuming the first phase doesn't result in a shoot-down ) in which manoeuvre differentials determine success. Obviously ( but I include this for some people who seem determined not to wish to conduct any personal interpretation ) pilot factors impact on all phases. As such you miss out on one of the main features of A2A combat which was the attempt by Energy fighters to fight an energy battle while turners tried to fight a turning battle ( or where both sides got tired and decided to accept a series of head-on passes as a result of a failure of either to turn the battle into their "type" of fight ). There's lots of talk about other stuff in terms of improving the A2A model but I think most of the other stuff is minor detail stuff. The above is the largest current factor missing from the combat model which, if added, would significantly add to face validity, internal validity and yield type-specific results which were believable given the doctrinal underpinnings and technical/tactical characteristics of the planes involved.

LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 8:26:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 LoBaron, Within the air combat model there is no attempt to differentiate between energy fighters and manoeuvre fighters nor is there an attempt to allow for the different tactical doctrines employed by these two types of fighters. Thus there can be no interplay of the doctrines nor any attempt by energy fighters to "fight on their terms" nor on manoeuvre fighter to "fight on their terms". Instead we have two highly biased "phases" to the fight. The initial phase is biased in terms of favouring speed differentials until the first pass is finished. Once that's done there's an absence of the extension phase for the energy fighter and the acceptance of a second phase of combat ( assuming the first phase doesn't result in a shoot-down ) in which manoeuvre differentials determine success. Obviously ( but I include this for some people who seem determined not to wish to conduct any personal interpretation ) pilot factors impact on all phases. As such you miss out on one of the main features of A2A combat which was the attempt by Energy fighters to fight an energy battle while turners tried to fight a turning battle ( or where both sides got tired and decided to accept a series of head-on passes as a result of a failure of either to turn the battle into their "type" of fight ). There's lots of talk about other stuff but I think most of the other stuff is minor detail stuff. The above is the largest current factor missing from the combat model which, if added, would significantly add to face validity, internal validity and yield type-specific results which were believable given the doctrinal underpinnings and technical/tactical characteristics of the planes involved. Exactly. :) I think the engine cannot coope with pure E fighters as P-38, FW-190, Corsair because the result after a battle is always the rest trying to force a turn fight. But the game engine handles it better than percieved in this thread at least. For detail no fighters were pure turn fighters. E advantage was more important than anything els and the easiest way to do it is through alt. E.g.: What prevents an Oscar in a dive to get on the tail of a P-38 who just had to correct from its dive to finish off another Oscar? That the game cannot model fighter pilots using their airframe to the max is obvious nut it abstracts the best ways out of it.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.90625