The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (Full Version)

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



Message

Firebomber47 -> The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/23/2010 3:45:39 AM)

Having worked out some fairly decent tactics in dealing with the AI's quirky behavior, I decided to take a swing at another campaign scenario, #19 - "South From Rabaul", in which the Japs get a surge of ships and supposedly superior pilot training. The scenario was going along fairly well (with me playing the US side) until air operations began. I had developed a technique I dubbed 'The Jap CV Trap' (see that thread elsewhere in the UV Forums), but in the first go-around, I noticed a curious thing: US planes were NOT attacking the CVs, but were diverting to every other possible target, even clear across the map. In the first encounter (the redo of Coral Sea), there were only a couple of other minor task forces within range of Port Moresby, so enough planes were left to attack and sink a couple of the CVs, though one got away. However, when a larger Jap CV force appeared later in the game, the Allied aircraft would arrive in enormous formations to bomb a pair of transports, waste 'penny packets' of three long-range bombers at a time clear up at Kavieng or Rabaul (where, of course, the Jap air cover cut them to pieces) while practically ignoring the five Jap CVs sitting right on the doorstep to Port Moresby! I've played this sort of encounter enough to realize that something strange was afoot, so I tried beefing up the US escorts until EVERY fighter was 100% escort (0% CAP) - no change; altering bomber altitudes - no difference; eliminating any other target type (air bases, ports, etc) from the bomber's target assignments - still no improvement. My conclusion? In their infinite wisdom to make the Japs more formidable, the programmers took liberties in misdirecting any Allied aircraft away from worthwhile targets, like the CVs, to less valuable targets, like pairs of AKs. I haven't tried playing at any level other than 'Historical', but have to assume this would be the case in other scenarios on more difficult levels. Anyone else seen this phenomenon?



Kingfisher -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/24/2010 5:07:33 PM)

5 IJN carriers in one TF can throw up a nearly impregnable CAP of high quality pilots, especially if these are from the 1st and 2nd carrier divisions (those historically lost at Midway).

It may be your own strike aircraft have judged the odds of attacking this floating hornets nest to be suicide, even with fighter escorts.

Your best bet is to strike at it indirectly, at least in the early phase of the campaign. One major weakness of the IJN is the combat range of its escorts, particularly the DDs, which are in some cases less than half of the allied counterparts. This handicap imposes a restriction on the KB's ability to project power.

You can worsen this situation by port strikes at forward fleet anchorages like Rabaul and the Shortlands. Allied subs concentrated at the two entrances to Rabaul will also chip away at the supply convoys, and with luck take out a tanker or two. Over time this will have a negative effect on the IJN's capability to launch long range raids such as those below the gap at Gili Gili.

Mind you, this is effective only against the computer. A human player would certainly preposition enough fuel at forward bases such as Tulagi or Lae to extend the KB's range.



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/24/2010 7:58:33 PM)

Yep, well I finally managed to nail all the carriers after they loitered near Port Moresby for two more turns, but as they started to flee and I pursued with five US CVs, my TFs came within range of fighters from Rabaul. A formation of 3 Zeroes and 11 Nells ran into almost 90 F4's, but slipped through unscathed to put two fish into Yorktown. I've had many encounters with Jap aircraft and in all cases that much CAP would have stopped such a small attack force. My assumption is that, in their infinite wisdom, the programmers chose to give Jap aircraft an edge (i.e., cheat) to allow them to reflect the supposedly 'superior' training Jap pilots were receiving in this scenario. As far as I'm concerned, this scenario is skewed a little too far in favor of the Japs, giving them superhuman abilities where none existed historically, so that's the end of my interest in it. I will go back to other, more realistic ones in which Jap planes/pilots are still superior, but don't have to cheat to win their battles.



MikeB20 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/25/2010 8:09:16 AM)

Try sc19 against a human opponent, Firebomber.

*here's another 16 fighters and 32 Dauntlesses fed to you piecemeal mister KB Death Star*
*why thank you, says KB Death Star <nom, nom, nom, nom, nom - burrpp>*

[&:]



RGIJN -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/25/2010 1:39:09 PM)

Sc19 is the tough sh... indeed, but aware enough they labeled it as "hypthetical scenario"... However, I agree to most of your statements, just wanna add two things.

First, keep in mind the IJN will suffer double each time they lose an A/C since they NEVER get other replacement pilots than the crappy greenhorns. So even if they start out with some squadrons in the mid 90s (exp) those will quickly turn bad after just one or two major encounters. Even if the IJN wins a battle this means they lose alot fighting power for the long run. In 1943, you usually donīt have any access to experience levels above 80.

Second - remember the Allies can also send in strikes unharmed. Especially if several 4E units attack coherent together they wonīt even bother about a 150+ CAP and just fly thru it, place their bombs with a little luck at KBīs wooden flight decks... Of course the US will suffer some losses during such strikes too, but well - thatīs war!





Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/31/2010 2:18:13 AM)

Just tried an interesting series of experiments in Head-To-Head mode, controlling both sides. Experiment #1: Every Allied fighter group based at Port Moresby kept as escorts (0% CAP) with Jap CVs moved to within 3 hexes of that base. Result: No Allied air attacks on Jap CVs, but lots on troop TFs invading Buna and Gili-Gili. Experiment #2: Kept F4Fs on US CVs and approached to within SBD range of Jap CVs. Result: SBDs launched piecemeal with no F4F escort and one small B-17 raid from Port Moresby launched as well, all to no effect, while Jap CVs launched cohesive, overwhelming attack exclusively against US CVs, sinking them.

This pretty well explodes the myth that US airstrikes need a large fighter commitment for the AI to launch air attacks against Jap CVs. The overall impression is that the AI doesn't care whether US bombers have escort when a strike is launched from CVs, but changes the rules when a strike is being launched exclusively from a land airbase. Even if the Jap CVs are launching airstrikes against the airbase while sitting right off Port Moresby, the AI refuses to launch US airstrikes in response, allowing the airbase to be bombed until the runways are unusable. I hate simulations with double standards!



Kingfisher -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/31/2010 12:30:23 PM)

What's the time frame of your test? There is a world of difference between the summer of '42 and '43 in how allied air performs.

In the early months the experience levels of most land based strike aircraft is low - in some cases mid 50s. The carrier air wings are better at around the 70s, but they still had problems with coordinating their strikes.

Fast forward 12 months and massive strikes assembled from multiple bases will be the norm.



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (1/31/2010 6:19:42 PM)

Yes, it's understood that the quality of Allied air operations improves as the game goes on (to reflect the historical improvement of air ops due to lessons learned in combat earlier in the war), but the point to these experiments was to determine the AI's rules of engagement for Allied aircraft against Jap CVs. It has been noted elsewhere in the forums that Allied aircraft will absolutely not attack Jap CVs unless there are enough escorts, per the AI's programming, to allow pilots to deign to attack. These experiments show that it is not simply the need to meet a certain escort threshold, but rather that the game has two standards: If the US player is willing to risk his carriers in a battle, ALL airstrikes (both land and CV-based) will attack Jap CVs with virtually no escort allocated, whereas if this is strictly a land-based airstrike, the Allied bombers refuse to engage Jap CVs even with substantial fighter escort detailed to help. This is contrary to the generally accepted premise that, in all circumstances, fighter escort size determines the likelihood of bombers to attack Jap CVs. The reality is that there are at least two standards and maybe more - I'm still experimenting to find out. Bear in mind, these rules apply in both the human vs computer AND the human vs human (i.e., Head to Head) games, so it's critical to determine the threshold (and unwritten rules) whether you plan to play against the computer or a human, if you are to have a fighting chance as the US player.



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/1/2010 11:43:26 PM)

Just a thought, but did Allied Land based Aircraft launch attacks against Japanese CV's ( without Sea based support ) in this period ( historically )?

If it was not done ( or rare ), then it's a reasonable program response to your orders.

Perchance, Land based Aircraft will stick ( mainly) to Land based targets or easy targets and leave difficult TF targets to the smaller, faster and more agile Sea based planes. IMHO this is reasonable.



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/2/2010 12:12:42 AM)

Yep, land-based air was active against Jap CVs during this time in several parts of the Pacific (such as the many attacks launched by Midway Island against the Jap CVs at that historic battle). In any event, it's just one more curious aspect of this simulation that US carrier airstrikes will fearlessly wade into Jap CV TFs, even without escort, while land-based aircraft fail to launch, even if there are fighter escorts available. I'm still playing around with this scenario to see what the trigger threshold is for this (like, for instance, the unwritten rule that dictates that one- or two-ship TFs will not be attacked by Rabaul aircraft unless they come within about 12 hexes of that base), so I'll see what I can figure out. If I had the source code, it would be easier to determine, though (once a programmer, always a programmer).



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/5/2010 12:17:00 AM)

It's true that land based aircraft did make some naval attacks. They did some from Henderson Field and other small island airfields too. However these attacks were by single engine fighter-bombers similar to ( or the same as ) those onboard Carriers.

Attacks by twin engined and/or four engined aircraft were much rarer as they were very dangerous. Ships are harder to hit than land targets and the AA on board ships was likely to be worse than that at bases. These types of aircraft were also generally doing OP'S in support of the Army / Marines and not the Navy.

You may control both in the game, but close co-operation was not nomal and the choices made here by the AI look reasonable to me.



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/5/2010 12:37:10 AM)

The point to the exercises was to determine whether the AI uses a different set of rules for CV vs land-based air attacks. The results show that its reluctance to launch land-based attacks against Jap CVs, escorted or not, is thrown out the window when at least one US CV attack is made in that turn. It's as though the AI changes the rules if any US CVs are involved, permitting land-based aircraft to launch in identical setups where the only difference is the presence of a US CV. The US CV doesn't provide any escort for the land-based aircraft, yet the aircraft attack anyway. It's a double standard, pure and simple, and a different set of rules of engagement created by the programmers (take it from a programmer - I know).



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/12/2010 10:18:25 PM)

IMHO the "double standard" you refer to here is quite the opposite.
It in fact reflects quite well the comments I made in my previous posts on this subject.

You correctly understand that it is deliberate programing, but not the logic that lies behind it. Consider this, why would any programer deliberately do what you are suggusting has been done?

Re read my posts. Reconsider your theory and try to understand mine.
Is my theory not a more logical answer?



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/13/2010 3:38:02 AM)

Well, I haven't really seen any arguments to change my opinion, so I guess we've just reached an impasse on the topic. Having replayed the engagement several different ways, the results support my conclusion.



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/20/2010 8:57:51 PM)

Impasse agreed. [:)]

Please note ( as stated last post ), that your stated result/s also support my conclusion/s. [:D]

A thought re one of your "other" posts. If you wish to continue playing with the "Historical" AI difficulty setting, and want a more demanding game; try increasing the commitment level of the Japanese and/or decreasing the Allied commitment level. You could also adjust one or more of the other Realism Options. I know changing one or more of these will effect the historicalness of the game, but it will make it more of a challange for you. N.B. You might also consider adjusting one or more of the Game Options, particularly the "Turn Cycle length". [8D]

Good hunting.[;)]



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (2/21/2010 7:53:23 PM)

Yes, well, talk is cheap, but nothing persuades like results. Using the tactics I've honed to perfection with the techniques and logic you dismiss, here are the results from my second campaign against a Jap AI as of a game date of 9/12/43. Read 'em and weep!

By this point in the game, the Japs still have a handful of ships left, consisting of 1 X CVE, 1 X CA, 8 X CL, 12 X DD, and 1 X AP, but with the loss of Truk, nowhere to base them.

[image]local://upfiles/33633/047CF1D0BE234DF0B83EB81D55960FD5.jpg[/image]



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (6/30/2010 1:22:35 AM)

The conclusions you draw from any kind of result/s are just like those that can be derived from any set of statistics. It's often just all in the "eye of the beholder", and equally possible that ( say ) 10 different people can "see" ( say ) 10 different sets of conclusions.

The right answer may belong to the "majority" in any such instance or to a particular intelligent individual. One can claim victory if one belongs to the majority or if one considers that one is the smartest individual, but no-one will ever know the truth of it, and no-one should presume to either...



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (6/30/2010 1:29:28 AM)

Oh, I see. So, that implies, of course, that you've also taken all the Jap bases in a campaign game?



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (6/30/2010 1:57:40 AM)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how you can infer that from what was stated.

Anyway, do I need to be on the moon or fly/sail around the world to know the world is round (same logic )? I think not.

IMHO, that makes your logic herein definitely flawed, and reinforces my previous conclusion/s re the stated subject matter. No doubt you will disagree, so lets just drop the matter.



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (6/30/2010 2:02:39 AM)

I'll take that as a no



DEB -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (6/30/2010 2:07:09 AM)

Yes or no - proves nothing!!

Or rather, it proves you have an ego; and maybe, it's going to your head a little.

Bye, bye...



Firebomber47 -> RE: The Curious Case of Scenario 19 (6/30/2010 2:18:55 AM)

'Yes' shows that you can do the job (or, in this case, win the game decisively). 'No' simply shows that you prefer to nit-pick those who can in self-righteous indignation. Au revoir! [:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875