RE: Strange CAP results

RE: Strange CAP results (Full Version)

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

Message

AcePylut -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/30/2010 8:32:37 PM)
I love the AE CAP. To address stratosphere cap: If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude. Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude. We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude. Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home. If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home. For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.) All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt. Etc.

LoBaron -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/30/2010 10:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut To address stratosphere cap: If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude. Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude. We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude. Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home. If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home. For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.) All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt. Etc. [:D] If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude. If this was the only great thing added, this is what should. Thank you for this great idea. Realism + making stratosphere sweeps something that has to be achieved with tactical superiority. [&o] Edit: And this from a man who thinks 3 sneaky B17´s could duck through clouds. Which I find very realistic tbh... [8D]

TheElf -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 12:10:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar That happens quite often..and is also quite historical. Problems that Zero had against B-17 were basically 2-fold. First was inadequate firepower, since even when Zero had 20mm cannons, round velocity, ammunition and effective firing distance were quite limited. This augments the second shortcoming, which was that the Zero was horribly vulnerable to B-17 defensive armament. Often overlooked..., and very valid. In general, you had to really chew up a B-17 to have a chance to bring it down..., but a lightly built flying gas can such as most Japanese Fighters basically were was an explosion and fire just waiting to happen. That huge range and maneuverability came with a pricetag. Except that these were B-17Ds which were known to be weak in defensive armament to the rear. The sole position being the tub of doom armed with a single .30 or .50 MG. The two tear drop waist positions could train to the rear, but range of motion for all three mounts was severely limited and the ventral tub was especially awkward for the gunner to be effective. For all it's famed toughness what is equally often overlooked..., and very valid was that the D model was poorly defended and was for all intents and purposes not much different in defensive armament, save the caliber of the weapons, than a German Medium bomber.

TheElf -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 12:35:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: invernomuto quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf another force at play here is relative force allocation. A CAP will not expend it's entire strength against a smaller force. It may. It may not. There is a line of code in there that will keep an entire Escort of 45 fighters from trying to engage one lone interceptor. The idea that 47 Zeros would all engage 3 B-17s simultaneously is ludicrous. Thanks for your reply, these are really useful infos. So the 47 Zeros in CAP are not all engaged in combat. Could you also confirm that if CAP outnumbers the escorts part of the CAP could be reserved for bombers only? Thanks in advance! Yes, a CAP that largely outnumbers an Escort may in fact engage the Escort with "sufficient Numbers" and "reserve", for lack of a better word, some portion of the CAP to get to the Bombers. It is also possible to get PAST the Escort altogether. This is most often displayed as a very short/ineffective fighter vs. fighter combat, and the bombers taking a beating.

TheElf -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 12:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut I love the AE CAP. To address stratosphere cap: *If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude.* Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude. We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude. Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home. If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home. For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.) All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt. Etc. I considered this originally. But at some point you have to draw a line between tactical wargame and operational, and there is little doubt we lean heavily toward the tactical side, often to the chagrin of those who prefer the "simpler" Operational aspects of WitP as it was originally envisioned. It has also been discussed as a possible fix for the Strato-sweep, but Fixes for code tweaks are turned off right now, and I am not actually 100% convinced that anything is really wrong. But I have not played in some time. It would be a whole other thing to figure out how to display to the players...essentially the UI would be affected and more room would be needed to display the range figures either graphically or in text on the AC Unit display. Overall more complication in an area that is already more complicated than the Non-Airminded want it.

castor troy -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 7:18:27 AM)
good to hear a 23:0 A2A (probably wrong and not that high) isn´t strange for people on this forum [:D] interesting in what "ghost features" people put into the routines. Naming them ghost because I haven´t seen the official announcement about them. Only speaking about abstract things all the time. Guess people also are ok with the results in Axis and Allies and the die rolls resulting in 5 vs 2 fighters destroyed for example. With their imagination ability they can abstract a lot of things. The interesting thing for me is that we could abstract those things in UV or WITP also but there we only were speaking about an off result, the game getting into some kind of loop, producing a loopsided result. But not that it would be strange then. Strange probably starts when we see a mod having the Nimitz showing up but even for Final Countdown there will be one that will find an abstraction for it. [;)] Or even an explanation? [;)] The thread was named strange Cap result, me as the Allied player found it strange to kill a daitai of Zeroes on sweep in mid 42 with P-40E and P-400 for no loss A2A on my side. Leaning myself out of the window, I´m sure this is far from the normal results in reality, therefore strange. I could also abstract a thing into this P-40 and P-400 vs Zero example: NONE of my pilots has seen combat before (except three pilots taking down 10 Vals a day earlier). They are all "green" pilots, leaving my "onmap flightschool" on the West Coast. All 70 skill. Abstracting this into the result would make it even stranger to see a bunch of pilots leaving flight school taking down two dozen Zero pilots that probably have fought for months already. Doing this with no loss to the Allied. Is it strange then? If someone thinks my example posted was to offend someone on this thread, no, this was not my intention.

LoBaron -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 8:03:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut I love the AE CAP. To address stratosphere cap: *If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude.* Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude. We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude. Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home. If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home. For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.) All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt. Etc. I considered this originally. But at some point you have to draw a line between tactical wargame and operational, and there is little doubt we lean heavily toward the tactical side, often to the chagrin of those who prefer the "simpler" Operational aspects of WitP as it was originally envisioned. It has also been discussed as a possible fix for the Strato-sweep, but Fixes for code tweaks are turned off right now, and I am not actually 100% convinced that anything is really wrong. But I have not played in some time. It would be a whole other thing to figure out how to display to the players...essentially the UI would be affected and more room would be needed to display the range figures either graphically or in text on the AC Unit display. Overall more complication in an area that is already more complicated than the Non-Airminded want it. Very interesting points. You are right, there is nothing wrong with the alt and A2A models. Air combat is very close to real with a small bit of imagination. On the other hand, if you could implement it as simple as possible - like setting only two range groups (e.g. a reduced range for the top 2 alt bands) this could add tactical falvour to the alt game that is already represented in other air combat aspects. I wouldn´t even include 100ft because then the discussion starts if the planes don´t use higher altitude on cruise anyway... Simulating the fuel consumption caused by a climb to for 25-30 and 31+ bands is a very interesting idea. High sweeps would be a valid strategy but a bit harder to achieve. (I like your idea of a HR that limits the planes´ alt on sweep to the optimum band - but I think that its not needed with the current air model and split CAP).

Kwik E Mart -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 7:07:39 PM)
Check out the CAG's report after the Battle of Coral Sea in this site. I think it illustrates the complexities of CAP, escorts, strikes, etc. quite nicely. Note the clouds in the vicinity of the Japanese carrier force during Coral Sea in the diagram below (from the same Hyperwar report). The report cites the proximity of the clouds as a significant factor in the success of their attack. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/cv5-Coral-prelim.html#A [image]local://upfiles/13152/01C8AB16B78B458CB3AE816DAD94692D.jpg[/image]

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 7:13:44 PM)
quote: I wouldn´t even include 100ft because then the discussion starts if the planes don´t use higher altitude on cruise anyway... I'm absolutely certain that groups do not fly at 100ft all the way . seen a few combat reports of my 100ft atatckers being spotted at 12k alt by radar. Have to be a spectacularly bad navigator to miss 11,900 ft of altitude [;)]. Conversely the strato sweeps 'may' also fly to target at medium alt then fly up on reaching the target hex .. no idea IF thats possible or even true but might well explain why lower CAP could i theory dive on higher sweep if the transit alt was lower than the CAP setting. I'll dig one up if i can :- Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft A5M4 Claude x 4 A6M3 Zero x 1 Allied aircraft Beaufighter IC x 10 Japanese aircraft losses A5M4 Claude: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses Beaufighter IC: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Japanese Ships PC Ch 5, Shell hits 1 LB AG-5139 Aircraft Attacking: 7 x Beaufighter IC bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

witpqs -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 7:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK Aircraft Attacking: 7 x Beaufighter IC bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb SAP Bomb Rob - what orders are these FB's set on? Is it Naval Attack with altitude of 100ft? I've been wondering if they would use their bombs or just guns with those orders, so your example is helpful to me.

LoBaron -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 7:20:29 PM)
Great link Kwik E Mart! Thank you. Rob I absolutely agree re the 100ft missions. Still, on high alt missions, since planes have the tendency to climb much slower in thin air I think a sweep would have reached the assigned altitude long before the actual attack run to compensate for this.

LoBaron -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 7:22:27 PM)
witpqs: the sneaky bastards also dropped bombs, though only the shells hit. (I think this was also because my CAP disrupted the attack) Must have been low level naval attack.

AcePylut -> RE: Strange CAP results (3/31/2010 8:28:58 PM)
"Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet." I'm curious to know the stats of the "detecting" units. They have their estimation wrong, obviously. What we assume, is that they were "spotted by a guy standing right underneath the aircraft"... but perhaps they were spotted via "sound detector", or a hungover korean guard enslaved by the Japs that didn't care, or a new guy that didn't know what a Beaufighter was and mistook it for a B29...etc.etc.etc. It makes me wonder if a seargent didn't think they were just a flight of B17's coming in from the states.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.5625