RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers

RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (Full Version)

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

Message

Ikazuchi0585 -> RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (4/28/2010 6:09:00 PM)
"Reading the Elf`s arrogant answer, I think we should change his name to Admiral Christie. Admiral Christie, if one remembers correctly was the man behind the defective Mark 14 torpedo." If TheElf is Admiral Christie, then CT is just a whiny b**ch... who just has to be right. I agree with LoBaron though.

TheElf -> RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (4/28/2010 6:43:42 PM)
What no one seems to realize is that you are all jumping to random (based on pure uninformed speculation) conclusions about why what you are seeing is "wrong". Whether or not what you see is "wrong" is tenuous at best since I have no idea where you get your opinion, whether it is based in long years of research and a strong base of knowledge about CV combat, or a cursory skim of the popular sources with little regard for anything but your own biased (one way or the other) agenda. Have you considered that a perceived miss rate might actually be due to an overly modeled ship evasion roll? Why is it that the AAA or DB accuracy is immediately targeted? Most of these bold "this is broken" statements are made in complete ignorance of how the code works, or any other facets of the code that might contribute to a perceived deficiency. And none of them provide any clearly defined statistical tests that show a clear and consistent case of uber AAA. If anything, the complaint I here the most is that AAA is anemic. How is it that we have completely switched? Someone can say this is wrong, and All I can say is ok...because I don't know you, I don't know your agenda, and I don't know what kind of grasp on reality you might have. As an example, Jeffs, the A-24 and it's army crews were not known to be lethal CV killers. The fact that No A-24s ever saw an IJN CV and they didn't really even train to Anti-ship combat as much as ground support, would probably surprise you given your post. Does it? If you didn't know that then I am not surprised to see yet another poster complain of something is so wrong out of ignorance. What is the Naval bombing skill of your A-24s? Your result is not that different from the original WitP. not everything changed in AE. Vought Vindicators were completely inept at Midway, (their big shot) and the glide bombed. Other things to consider: what was the AAA score of the fleet you attacked? How many guns were you facing? What was your leaders EXP? AGGR? Were they flying at extended range? your post conveys no information other than you are upset with the result.

Whisper -> RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (4/28/2010 8:07:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dbfw190 "Reading the Elf`s arrogant answer, I think we should change his name to Admiral Christie. Admiral Christie, if one remembers correctly was the man behind the defective Mark 14 torpedo." If TheElf is Admiral Christie, then CT is just a whiny b**ch... who just has to be right. I agree with LoBaron though. Arrogance is truly in the mind of the beholder. There is arrogance and there is information and explanation. When internet experts hear something they don’t want to hear from people who know what is happening, it’s always called arrogance. Elf’s explanations make you think and that’s hard to do if you are an internet expert. It is hard to break the internet expert ego, but if someone is not so self-important, but is a thoughtful individual, then is much to learn and think about in this mans explanations.

castor troy -> RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (4/29/2010 9:50:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: jeffs Reading the Elf`s arrogant answer, I think we should change his name to Admiral Christie. Admiral Christie, if one remembers correctly was the man behind the defective Mark 14 torpedo. If they had bothered to test the torpedo for real, they would have quickly realized its failures. However, as Christie was rather arrogant, he argued "trust me, I am a genius "(obviouly limited budgets did not help either). So it took 21 months of abjct failure before the defects were fixed. Please Elf, run tests...You will be shocked at how well Japanese AA does vs allied AA. But merely whining you designed it so everything is a-ok is bogus...So until there is testing, I will call you Admiral Christie. jeffs don´t confuse arrogance with slowly increasing boredom, which is the result of explaining the same things to the same person over and over again to no effect. I totally changed my opinion on this topic after reading The Elf´s explanation on this in the general discussion thread. (link is some posts above). If you read through CT´s posts you will notice a unhealthy tendency to misinterprete others´ answers or advices, to not accept alternative explanations for the in-game situations he is experiencing which contradict his own, and to repeatedly reposting false assumptions which others have long ago accepted as explained. To counter this can be quite unnerving, more so if you in fact try to help others getting a better understanding of game mechanics. [;)] oh sorry, forgot it´s my fault. Hope you´ve already heard about the Eyjafjallajökull? You should also know that I´ve paid forum members for doing the last 15 "complain, whine, bitch" threads that were not started by me. Understandable though, while I´m a bad player and a bad human being anyway, I got the money to do so[sm=00000280.gif]

castor troy -> RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (4/29/2010 10:02:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf What no one seems to realize is that you are all jumping to random (based on pure uninformed speculation) conclusions about why what you are seeing is "wrong". Whether or not what you see is "wrong" is tenuous at best since I have no idea where you get your opinion, whether it is based in long years of research and a strong base of knowledge about CV combat, or a cursory skim of the popular sources with little regard for anything but your own biased (one way or the other) agenda. Have you considered that a perceived miss rate might actually be due to an overly modeled ship evasion roll? Why is it that the AAA or DB accuracy is immediately targeted? Most of these bold "this is broken" statements are made in complete ignorance of how the code works, or any other facets of the code that might contribute to a perceived deficiency. And none of them provide any clearly defined statistical tests that show a clear and consistent case of uber AAA. If anything, the complaint I here the most is that AAA is anemic. How is it that we have completely switched? Someone can say this is wrong, and All I can say is ok...because I don't know you, I don't know your agenda, and I don't know what kind of grasp on reality you might have. As an example, Jeffs, the A-24 and it's army crews were not known to be lethal CV killers. The fact that No A-24s ever saw an IJN CV and they didn't really even train to Anti-ship combat as much as ground support, would probably surprise you given your post. Does it? If you didn't know that then I am not surprised to see yet another poster complain of something is so wrong out of ignorance. What is the Naval bombing skill of your A-24s? Your result is not that different from the original WitP. not everything changed in AE. Vought Vindicators were completely inept at Midway, (their big shot) and the glide bombed. Other things to consider: what was the AAA score of the fleet you attacked? How many guns were you facing? What was your leaders EXP? AGGR? Were they flying at extended range? your post conveys no information other than you are upset with the result. so you´ve also included a code that made them as useless in the game as in real life? Your bringing up a real life example (that I totally agree to) and seem to say it´s the same in the game. But what´s the difference in the game between a Banshee, a Val, a Vindicator or a Dauntless (except their stats)? All are divebombers and all of them perform perfectly in my game, this of course can be due to me failing. Is there a special code for special "types" of aircraft that performed bad in real life and therefor also being expected to perform bad in the game? If so, then this code doesn´t work in my version. Granted, my pilots are of course trained in nav bombing. I don´t say his bombers should or should not have hit something but I wonder why it seems you´re saying that a Vindicator shouldn´t hit something in the game because they didn´t at Midway. Again the question: is a divebomber a divebomber a divebomber or is there a ghost code that has been forgot to be mentioned in the manual (I just checked that) that makes certain divebombers less useful in the game? There was this old saying a tank is a tank is a tank in WITP so I´ll copy that to a divebomber is a divebomber is a divebomber. You don´t have to answer if I´m only annoying you.

Dili -> RE: Pre flak attacks against dive bombers (4/29/2010 1:50:55 PM)
quote: The allegation was that artillery was useless....testing showed that the aritilley "in game" when used in a bombardment mission caused the defender to use elevated rates of supply....which when applied to an isolated siege will cause the siege to end sooner. So my contention is artillery is not useless...it will help to end a siege sooner...like IRL. Artillery wasn't only useful in sieges. With enough guns(several battalion/regiments) any side should be able to put an infantry division with enough damage to be efective.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.015625