RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (Full Version)

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

Message

tigercub -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 1:16:53 PM)
The game is not perfect and never will be but its still better than any war game ever made so give it a rest...unless you can help bring the game forward. Tigercub!

castor troy -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 1:57:22 PM)
He clearly said the stratosweeps are an exploit and he suggested to use house rules.

castor troy -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 1:58:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Good. I hope others will follow your example. sounds like the pope... in 1402

KenchiSulla -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 2:12:50 PM)
There are more factors though. Here an interesting example: everything happens the same day LRCAP has altitude advantage. P40E intercept the formation. After one plane takes damage about 4 break off (low morale?). P40E dive in on Oscar in next sequence, then I see another "intercept" message in the POSTAIR phase. Combat and end Morning Air attack on Imphal , at 60,40 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 13 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-21-IIa Sally x 31 Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 21 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 12 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-21-IIa Sally: 4 damaged Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed Airbase hits 1 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 17 Aircraft Attacking: 25 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb 6 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb 4 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 10000 feet CAP engaged: 23rd FG/74th FS with P-40E Warhawk (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead 23rd FG/75th FS with P-40E Warhawk (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 5 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead 23rd FG/76th FS with P-40E Warhawk (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead CAP has altitude advantage. These are fresh planes because one of my bomber groups bombed this hex without being intercepted. Look at how late the sweep is spotted. While the raid flies lower the the LRCAP the OSCARS get the dive on P40E and the P40E are massacred in the first phase. P40E only return fire in the last few sequences. If Oscars had 6 .50s none of the P40Es would have survived here. It seemed that the "recalled" planes also get shot at but not sure Afternoon Air attack on Imphal , at 60,40 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 3 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 19 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 12 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed Aircraft Attacking: 7 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 10000 feet CAP engaged: 23rd FG/74th FS with P-40E Warhawk (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 5 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead 23rd FG/75th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes 23rd FG/76th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes

mbatch729 -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 3:13:51 PM)
In answer to some of the inquiries, this was the first turn the group had flown. They had been on R & R at a behind the lines base for a while. Don't know what the defensive ratings of the pilots were. If this had been an isolated event, I wouldn't have brought it up, but would have chalked it up to a bad day in the war. However, it has been happening consistenly over multiple bases. Regarding the post on picking where to defend, etc., with things as they are I can't defend ANY base. High altitude sweeps decimate the fighter groups protecting it, and then the bombers come in and bomb at will. Will spend some time reading over the house rules I can find on it. One note regarding my opponent. He's a great oppoonent and plays fairly. We've had games going since the early UV days. So in no way should my rant about the sweeps be taken as anything negative about him or his playing style.

Walloc -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 3:45:43 PM)
From what i've read there seems to be a few different HR regarding altitude. These are the ones i've seen. 1. No sweeps/CAP higher than at the best manuver band of the plane. My short take, in regards what it measn to dive and that factor only. Starts out with both sides generally maxed at the same altitude for both side. Tojo/P-38(not that many p-38 to go around tho initially) alters that, but then as 43 goes by the US planes gets some advantange tho not fully. British planes genrally behind on the curve. Late war jap can come back and get advantage if certain planes are researched. 2 Same as above just using the 2nd best manuver band taking teh altitude up a notch compared to above. 3. A set max altitude for both sides through out teh war. 20, 25, 29, 30ish seems to be the used ones. My short take, in regards what it measn to dive and that factor only. That "eliminates" the dive tho not in totally in reality. CAPs will have to climb and some times doesnt reach the height so in some cases but much much less than with out HR u will see sides getting dive bonus. Generally the advantage when its there, is on the side of sweeps. 4. Same as above but altering the altitude by year. So starting at for exaple 15k then goes higher and higher as the years go by to allow the allied supercharged planes to use that advantage of higher altitudes. Take same as above. 5. Same as above 2 but lets the CAP have a slight advantage of usually 1k to try and even out the times the dive bonus applies. Hope it helps u research stuff, fell free to ask questions if stuff isnt clear Rasmus

mbatch729 -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 6:30:20 PM)
Walloc, Thanks for the summaries on the HR's. I'll talk w/my opponent and see which one we think would be best.

SuluSea -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 6:52:49 PM)
I believe the air model is fantastic as currently modelled. I'd like to see altitudes come down for historical purposes but realistically sweepers have the initiative and altitude advantage they should win most if not all of the battles. My only issue is with the heights air conflicts take place, I'd like to see the same modelling but everything dropped down to a combat ceiling. Japanese bases with the weaker radar if any at all will be at a severe disadvantage because they may not know a raid is on top of them until it is much too late.

crsutton -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 7:05:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Occasionly, a brushfire will break out. I am guessing one might start up now. � [:D]� Hee...hee, I pretty much called this one right.[:D] BTW, I am thinking it is time to start a new thread on this subject.

herwin -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 7:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy I just want to point out that it first long was said by the responsible person everything is fine until we reached the point that the air team lead actually was admitting it would be kind of an exploit. Castor, I don't remember Elf saying it was an exploit. There are lots of threads and lots of posts so maybe I missed it. I remember him saying there were ways to counter it to lessen its effects. That and it was part of the deal - some planes are better at higher altitudes and that altitude really matters. Early on IJ has better high altitude planes, later the Allies do. Historically sweeps went in high to try and dive on CAP. My first sweep went in at 25,000ft and was higher than CAP (forget their altitude). My second sweep at 25,000 but CAP was at 30,000. My third at 35,000... until CAP was flying at ~35,000 (max I think) and my sweeps were going in at 37,000 or 38,000 (whatever was max for them). Finally we settled on a HR of 25,000 max (at first it was 30,000 but some significant models of my planes can't do that). This reduces the altitude issues, but why bother? Early on IJ had the advantage, later the Allies did, so why neuter that? I favor it just being part of the game and using all the tools to try and work through it. It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting. I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots.

ChezDaJez -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 8:31:23 PM)
quote: It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting. I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots. Yes, but that "hot pilot" is dealing in reality based upon experience, not theory. Nothing against your father-in-law but test pilots didn't necessarily make the best fighter pilots. They just happened to have superb flying skills which weren't always based on the tactics or external situational awareness needed to be effective in air-air combat. This debate is about the effectiveness of high altitude sweeps once the target has been aquired so target acquisition has already taken place. And I do agree that the greater the difference in altitude, the longer it takes for interception to take place thereby giving the defender a greater chance to prepare and evade. Plus an aircraft approaching terminal dive velocity is not able to maneuver as well as an aircraft at slower speeds. In my game, Brad occasionally conducts a high altitude sweep with his Hurris and P-40s. Initially, I attempted to match his altitude as best I could but was taking losses on the order of 2 or 3:1. I changed my CAP altitude to one that gives me the best MVR rating advantage over his aircraft and losses have dropped to roughly 1:1. The jury is still out on this though as he doesn't routinely sweep. He still gets the benefit of the bounce but once the bounce is over, my higher MVR rating increases my ability to knock down some of his aircraft plus my aircraft remain in a better position to intercept any bombers. Chez

JWE -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 9:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots. Wow Harry, that's totally cool! What was his name, and when was he on payroll? My little Wisconsin LLC has done some interesting subcontract work for Bell-Boeing and Boeing-Sikorsky in the last couple years - sensors, not airplanes - but we have to meet and greet with the fat-cats. Corporate dinner small-talk is so boring and I would love to mention to Sorrentino or Marsh - 'I know someone who's father was one of your test pilots back in (whenever)' - way more fun than the usual. What planes did he fly? Which fields did he fly out of? Gosh, this is nice to know.

herwin -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 9:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: It's WAD, but the influential designer is a hot pilot, not an aeronautical engineer. In reality, lower had an advantage at target acquisition, higher's dive advantage reached saturation at about 4000-5000 feet superior altitude, and anything higher than that was delayed in intercepting. I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots. Yes, but that "hot pilot" is dealing in reality based upon experience, not theory. Nothing against your father-in-law but test pilots didn't necessarily make the best fighter pilots. They just happened to have superb flying skills which weren't always based on the tactics or external situational awareness needed to be effective in air-air combat. This debate is about the effectiveness of high altitude sweeps once the target has been aquired so target acquisition has already taken place. And I do agree that the greater the difference in altitude, the longer it takes for interception to take place thereby giving the defender a greater chance to prepare and evade. Plus an aircraft approaching terminal dive velocity is not able to maneuver as well as an aircraft at slower speeds. In my game, Brad occasionally conducts a high altitude sweep with his Hurris and P-40s. Initially, I attempted to match his altitude as best I could but was taking losses on the order of 2 or 3:1. I changed my CAP altitude to one that gives me the best MVR rating advantage over his aircraft and losses have dropped to roughly 1:1. The jury is still out on this though as he doesn't routinely sweep. He still gets the benefit of the bounce but once the bounce is over, my higher MVR rating increases my ability to knock down some of his aircraft plus my aircraft remain in a better position to intercept any bombers. Chez In other words, take advantage of the details! Bob was a fine aeronautical engineer and later did heat shield design for NASA. He was very quiet and very good. Climbed mountains as a hobby. His retirement gift was a mounted chunk of the Apollo 13 heat shield.

herwin -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 9:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I wish my father-in-law were still alive--he was an aeronautical engineer, a Navy reserve pilot, and one of Boeing's fighter test pilots. Wow Harry, that's totally cool! What was his name, and when was he on payroll? My little Wisconsin LLC has done some interesting subcontract work for Bell-Boeing and Boeing-Sikorsky in the last couple years - sensors, not airplanes - but we have to meet and greet with the fat-cats. Corporate dinner small-talk is so boring and I would love to mention to Sorrentino or Marsh - 'I know someone who's father was one of your test pilots back in (whenever)' - way more fun than the usual. What planes did he fly? Which fields did he fly out of? Gosh, this is nice to know. Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots.

JWE -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 9:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots. Excellent !! Must have been step-father, yes? I'm taking a trip back east in 2 weeks for family reasons - will be seeing the "influential designer" on the way out. Coming back, will be doing the great circle through DC, St Louis, Colorado Springs, and Mojave. Probably won't see Sorrentino, but will see D'Arcy Marsh for sure. I'll be sure and mention it.

herwin -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/28/2010 10:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Robert Dickey flew the XF8B out of Seattle. When Pearl Harbor happened, he was a reserve naval aviator, but Boeing insisted on keeping him. Something about good test pilots being harder to find than good fighter pilots. Excellent !! Must have been step-father, yes? I'm taking a trip back east in 2 weeks for family reasons - will be seeing the "influential designer" on the way out. Coming back, will be doing the great circle through DC, St Louis, Colorado Springs, and Mojave. Probably won't see Sorrentino, but will see D'Arcy Marsh for sure. I'll be sure and mention it. Diane's dad--my father-in-law. My dad was an EOD tech in the ETO. Fought in the lines at Mortain and Bastogne, but usually worked as a gunsmith when he wasn't dealing with unexploded ordnance. The sort of thing Bob did.

JWE -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/29/2010 12:08:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Diane's dad--my father-in-law. My dad was an EOD tech in the ETO. Fought in the lines at Mortain and Bastogne, but usually worked as a gunsmith when he wasn't dealing with unexploded ordnance. Excellentamundo !! I'll have my secretary collect all this stuff and shoot it out to D'Arcy's secretary. It will give us something to talk about beyond that usual corporate small talk and nonsense. Thanks. (e) Sorry for the hijack, folks. Back to the regularly scheduled rant. (/e)

michaelm75au -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 11:32:16 AM)
Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat. Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one. The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat. If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC.

Andrew Brown -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 1:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC. I agree but the trick is to obtain the data... Andrew

John Lansford -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 5:12:53 PM)
The AI has sent the entire IJA air force to Burma in an attempt to slow down my advance back down the peninsula. I'm seeing 20-30 bombers escorted by as many as 150 Oscars over Akyab and Chittagong, just daring my fighters to come up and play. My squadrons of Hurricanes have experienced pilots but against those odds they just don't have a chance. Bombing the bases around Mandalay doesn't work; there's 30+ Oscars flying CAP over all of them and after a few days my medium/heavy bomber squadrons are worn down to nothing. I've got ground units advancing to Mandalay but the AI has stuffed those bases full of dug in troops and mine are on a long logistic train.

Sardaukar -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 6:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat. Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one. The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat. If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC. Hi, Could you check that planes flying high would actually gain meaningful amount of extra fatigue? It doesn't seem to be very large amount, but I haven't really tested it. It might be worth adjusting the fatigue amounts up, since really high-flying was apparently really stressing for pilot in single-engined fighters.

herwin -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 6:46:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC. I agree but the trick is to obtain the data... Andrew 500 ft/minute climb is usually used as the combat ceiling. Service ceiling is 100 ft/minute climb. You derive this from the engine chart. Rate of climb is proportional to power available once you have enough lift to stay airborne. I did the necessary computations once for a collection of aircraft including the F4F3, F4F4, F4U1, and F6F3, but my analysis notebook is no longer available to me. For a quick approximation, use the service ceiling to get the power available at that altitude and then back down in altitude until the increase in engine power gives you five times the power available.

Sardaukar -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 7:37:53 PM)
One could probably get some ROC vs Alt comparisons from IL-2 Sturmovik help program called IL2 Wingman. But of course not all may accept the stats from that simulator.

witpqs -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 8:24:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Single-engine aircraft flying at higher than 80% of their maximum altitude (as stated in the scenario file) will cause more additional fatigue on their pilots as they enter combat. The fatigue is based on distance flown from its base to the point of combat. Not sure when this changed from the original fixed 25K setting to a more variable one. The extra fatigue should impact the pilot skill in following combat. If I was building a scenario, I would use the maximum EFFECTIVE COMBAT ceiling as the max. The max ceiling is not used really for anything but combat, IIRC. Hi, Could you check that planes flying high would actually gain meaningful amount of extra fatigue? It doesn't seem to be very large amount, but I haven't really tested it. It might be worth adjusting the fatigue amounts up, since really high-flying was apparently really stressing for pilot in single-engined fighters. I think he's saying that he did just check the code...

topeverest -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 9:36:31 PM)
Extract of Commander USS Yorktown official AAR for Battle of Midway. CAP section summary. "It is believed that the Combat Air Patrol should be placed at such an altitude that the pilots are not required to use oxygen while on patrol. It is felt that 10,000 feet is a satisfactory altitude, for from there they can be vectored out satisfactorily to intercept either low or high flying bogies. It has the additional advantage of being less tiring on the pilot, as he is more comfortable at a lower altitude and is not inconvenienced by having to wear an oxygen mask. In addition, too much time is wasted in having a CAP come down from 18,000 feet by the controlling fighter director. A low flying bogey was picked up and part of the CAP had to be brought down to investigate. By the time they got down the bogey had disappeared off the screen. The Yorktown maintained her CAP at 10,000 feet and successfully intercepted all bogies except for the one mentioned above."

witpqs -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 9:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topeverest Extract of Commander USS Yorktown official AAR for Battle of Midway. CAP section summary. "It is believed that the Combat Air Patrol should be placed at such an altitude that the pilots are not required to use oxygen while on patrol. It is felt that 10,000 feet is a satisfactory altitude, for from there they can be vectored out satisfactorily to intercept either low or high flying bogies. It has the additional advantage of being less tiring on the pilot, as he is more comfortable at a lower altitude and is not inconvenienced by having to wear an oxygen mask. In addition, too much time is wasted in having a CAP come down from 18,000 feet by the controlling fighter director. A low flying bogey was picked up and part of the CAP had to be brought down to investigate. By the time they got down the bogey had disappeared off the screen. The Yorktown maintained her CAP at 10,000 feet and successfully intercepted all bogies except for the one mentioned above." It would be great if this type of time-consequence of altitude (and the need to change altitude) is accounted for by the code, including for sweepers coming in (not just for CAP). I don't know if it is currently in the code or not, but if it is that really answers many of the issues that people have raised.

USSAmerica -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 11:38:15 PM)
Even if that level of detail is taken into account by the code, to the player it is all abstracted. If you really want to see the air battle unfold like that, you need to look at a tactical game, instead of a Grand Strategic one. The detail in AE is unbelievable, but it can't be that detailed and still encompass the entire Pacific.

witpqs -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/30/2010 11:45:11 PM)
I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those.

CapAndGown -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/31/2010 12:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those. It's not going to help with the complaints if the complainers still think its broken. [;)]

witpqs -> RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant (8/31/2010 1:08:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm totally happy with it being abstracted. I just mean that there are various altitude complaints out there and knowing if this is (abstractly) accounted for would help with those. It's not going to help with the complaints if the complainers still think its broken. [;)] [image]local://upfiles/14248/0AD12B3B515F4C0FB2AE5C4B48462457.gif[/image] [:D]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375