RE: upcoming patch - question

RE: upcoming patch - question (Full Version)

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

Message

michaelm75au -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 4:02:37 PM)
In addition, there is a 25% chance that the land-based Allied Heavy Bomber (with a normal payload of at least 3 x 500LB bombs), at normal or less range, will use the larger bomb (1000 or 2000lb'ers) in or after 1943 from a base with more supply than is required at the base. I ran a test using one of the player saves that was from 1943 and set a couple of B-17 groups with a group experience of 70 & 71. Out of the 5 replays of the turn, one or two attacks used the larger bombs. But the majority were with the 500lb'ers. So the code does work in principle. -------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Nauru Island at 129,125 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 10 B-17F Fortress x 10 Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged B-17F Fortress: 4 damaged B-17F Fortress: 1 destroyed by flak Japanese Ships DD Fujinami BB Musashi Aircraft Attacking: 9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 5000 feet (5th BG/23rd BS / Seventh USAAF) Naval Attack: 2 x 2000 lb GP Bomb 10 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 5000 feet (11th BG/26th BS / Seventh USAAF) Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

LoBaron -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 4:15:40 PM)
Thank you for the clarification! A very slight reduction of the exp level needed is a valid point though. (to 65 maybe?) Squad exp level is the way to go and it was a good idea, but with 70exp this additional factor will only come into play under very extreme circumstances or, as Sardaukar pointed out, if the player creates an elite squad by hand picking veterans. Is this intended?

witpqs -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 4:20:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron I kinda agree with CT and Sardaukar. 70+ exp is a bit high when group exp is the governing value. I agree also.

castor troy -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 4:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron I kinda agree with CT and Sardaukar. 70+ exp is a bit high when group exp is the governing value. Indeed, quick fix would be to drop group exp to f. ex. 60, since even that is quite time-consuming to achieve and difficult to maintain. Not that I have anything against how AE handles the pilots, having units with cadre of aces, lots of regular polots and assortment of rookies is realistic. And one can cleate sort of "Flying Circuses" by filling elite units with elite pilots. Just not that many units, so it's bit at odds with alternative/advanced bomb load feature. I don´t know how the routine looks like but in WITP it seemed the more experienced the squadrons, the bigger the bombs. Now if you need 70 average squadron exp to drop even 1000lb bombs in AE then this is more or less only possible if you create an elite squadron to drop bombs that were quite normal in real life. 1000lb bombs aren´t that much of an exceptional load. I´m not asking for 2000lb bombs dropped all the time, but a couple of 1000lb bombs would be quite nice. To be honest, I don´t know if it makes a difference or if it isn´t even a disadvantage to drop 1000lb bombs because when looking at their effect, they´re nothing else than 2 500lb bombs and IIRC an official statement was that the damage at a base is calculated from what it hit. So 2 500lb bomb hits is nothing else than a 1000lb bomb hit. Attack with 1000lb bombs and you carry halve the load. Perhaps it´s just chrome in the end and nothing else. Though if there is a reason behind this feature, then I would definately say the experience has to be lowered to make at least 1000lb bombs available for level bombers without having to mod the load outs.

witpqs -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 4:30:56 PM)
As I recall the great advantage for 1,000lb and 2,000lb bombs is when the LBA group is attacking ships, especially heavily armored ships like BB's and CA's.

d0mbo -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 4:57:56 PM)
1000lb will do a lot more damage to a ship because of the damage model, as I see it penetration value < armor = only sys damage penetration value > armor = ship in trouble As a JFB I am against a change, but to be honest, all these 500lb bombs bouncing off doing hardly any damage is not realistic, so I support the lowering of needed experience for Allied bombers to drop >500lb bombs Edit: what witpqs said, much faster [:D]

michaelm75au -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/2/2010 11:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Thank you for the clarification! A very slight reduction of the exp level needed is a valid point though. (to 65 maybe?) Squad exp level is the way to go and it was a good idea, but with 70exp this additional factor will only come into play under very extreme circumstances or, as Sardaukar pointed out, if the player creates an elite squad by hand picking veterans. Is this intended? When the overall experience levels were downgraded, I don't think anyone went through and lowered all the places that check the group experience. I think that the expectation was that the groups would need to be trained up to match the old coded levels.

witpqs -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 3:30:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Thank you for the clarification! A very slight reduction of the exp level needed is a valid point though. (to 65 maybe?) Squad exp level is the way to go and it was a good idea, but with 70exp this additional factor will only come into play under very extreme circumstances or, as Sardaukar pointed out, if the player creates an elite squad by hand picking veterans. Is this intended? When the overall experience levels were downgraded, I don't think anyone went through and lowered all the places that check the group experience. I think that the expectation was that the groups would need to be trained up to match the old coded levels. I appreciate this last part, but it has become apparent that Experience just doesn't build up the way it did in WITP with so much advancement going to the specific skills in AE.

castor troy -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 8:33:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Thank you for the clarification! A very slight reduction of the exp level needed is a valid point though. (to 65 maybe?) Squad exp level is the way to go and it was a good idea, but with 70exp this additional factor will only come into play under very extreme circumstances or, as Sardaukar pointed out, if the player creates an elite squad by hand picking veterans. Is this intended? When the overall experience levels were downgraded, I don't think anyone went through and lowered all the places that check the group experience. I think that the expectation was that the groups would need to be trained up to match the old coded levels. but that´s where the problem for the players start. You CAN´T, at least not on a broad scale. All you can do is create flying circusses like Sardaukar said, taking out the 70+ exp crews to put them all into two or three squadrons. But that´s not realistic at all to create "special" squadrons to be able to drop 1000lb bombs. If we would go this way it would be like creating these British squadrons that were training to do attacks with Tallboys against Bismarck. But a Tallboy attack can hardly be compared with normal ground attacks with 1000lb bombs. Like I´ve mentioned earlier, having squadrons with a total of several thousand missions and the average exp is around 65. These bomber squadrons have been bombing since day one of the war and are now in Nov 43. And experience is only going up due to missions, no chance to use the training mission, you will never reach 70 within the war using training so that´s not a possibility either. So, I think it should be definetely lowered because the expectation to train these groups up was a misinterpretation of how the game turns out IMO. Please don´t take this as a negative critism, I just think that if the feature is still there and the ppl in charge thought it should stay there, then the feature also should be changed to meet the new conditions in AE as you just can´t take WITP standard for AE.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 11:56:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Like I´ve mentioned earlier, having squadrons with a total of several hundred missions and the average exp is around 65. These bomber squadrons have been bombing since day one of the war and are now in Nov 43. And experience is only going up due to missions, no chance to use the training mission, you will never reach 70 within the war using training so that´s not a possibility either. So, I think it should be definetely lowered because the expectation to train these groups up was a misinterpretation of how the game turns out IMO. Please don´t take this as a negative critism, I just think that if the feature is still there and the ppl in charge thought it should stay there, then the feature also should be changed to meet the new conditions in AE as you just can´t take WITP standard for AE. A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

tigercub -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 1:54:42 PM)
I think there is a case for bomber crews flying combat mission (not training mission) getting more experience from there missions, fighters can shot down planes and get a benefit... bombers can sink a BATTLESHIP and get nil experience if I am not mistaken.

herwin -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 3:03:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tigercub I think there is a case for bomber crews flying combat mission (not training mission) getting more experience from there missions, fighters can shot down planes and get a benefit... bombers can sink a BATTLESHIP and get nil experience if I am not mistaken. In WWII, fighter pilots quickly learned a lot about defence by being involved in combat. Not very much about shooting other aircraft down. Strangely enough, bomber crews improved a lot more by engaging in training than they did on live bomber missions. In each case, I think it reflected the availability or non-availability of immediate and relevant feedback.

witpqs -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 3:33:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

Puhis -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 3:39:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(] I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs...

castor troy -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 4:04:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(] I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs... not really, in the case of the Japanese it´s not experience based (if it´s still the same as in WITP, which it is for the Allied). If there enough shis spotted in a port, your Kates/Nells/Betties will drop 800kg bombs, no matter if 30 exp or 80 exp. If they hit, well that´s another story.

castor troy -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 4:05:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(] yeah, doubt it has something to do with being biased one or the other way in this case.

Puhis -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 4:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(] I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs... not really, in the case of the Japanese it´s not experience based (if it´s still the same as in WITP, which it is for the Allied). If there enough shis spotted in a port, your Kates/Nells/Betties will drop 800kg bombs, no matter if 30 exp or 80 exp. If they hit, well that´s another story. Really? Because I just a few turns ago bombed one port, and there was only a few xAKs in that port (5 my recon planes told), and all kates used 800 kg bombs. But these guys were my elite carrier pilots...

castor troy -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 4:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(] I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs... not really, in the case of the Japanese it´s not experience based (if it´s still the same as in WITP, which it is for the Allied). If there enough shis spotted in a port, your Kates/Nells/Betties will drop 800kg bombs, no matter if 30 exp or 80 exp. If they hit, well that´s another story. Really? Because I just a few turns ago bombed one port, and there was only a few xAKs in that port (5 my recon planes told), and all kates used 800 kg bombs. But these guys were my elite carrier pilots... I have never seen a port in WITP being bombed with 800kg bombs if there were no ships. And I can´t remember having heard about an experience need to use the 800kg bomb, could be wrong about it though as I never had inexperienced frontline IJN bomber pilots in WITP. [:D]

JohnDillworth -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 5:59:50 PM)
So maybe bomber experience is what needs to be patched? I have played through to 1945 and had maybe 1 or 2 pilots hit 7o experience. Many stayed the 50's despite 50+ missions. This becomes a particular problem when b-29's show up and you are sending out crews with 40's and 50's experience. No way to train crews and combat seems to do little for them.

Canoerebel -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 6:11:45 PM)
Wow, I hope the developers are reading this thread. This was my experience in my game with Miller, but I attributed it to my lack of of an intense pilot-training regimen. Even then, though, I was surprised that pilots in fighter and bomber squadrons that were regularly engage in successful attacks over months or years into 1945 had experience levels from 40s to 60s. I never got anything close to the kind of pilot quality you would expect to find with the Allies. Judging by the comments in this thread to this point, it appears that Allied players are uniformly having this experience as they go deeply into the game - 1943, 1944 and even 1945. Ominous.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 6:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(] I wasn't referring to the development team..., but to the forum discussions from which pressure for game change develop.

n01487477 -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 6:42:51 PM)
Not that I'm contributing a lot to the above discussion but while I was doing the R&D test for the other thread I also had two groups training... The one below is for LB on general training (ok so not the best setting). 582 turns, exp 35 -> 56. And I had a fighter group 100% training on escort started 35 -> 71. [image]local://upfiles/19798/5AEC1EE18F0D4C72AFF39CCB1A32B241.jpg[/image]

Shark7 -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/3/2010 9:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: tigercub I think there is a case for bomber crews flying combat mission (not training mission) getting more experience from there missions, fighters can shot down planes and get a benefit... bombers can sink a BATTLESHIP and get nil experience if I am not mistaken. In WWII, fighter pilots quickly learned a lot about defence by being involved in combat. Not very much about shooting other aircraft down. Strangely enough, bomber crews improved a lot more by engaging in training than they did on live bomber missions. In each case, I think it reflected the availability or non-availability of immediate and relevant feedback. For one thing, on a bombing run when you are under enemy fire, it is really hard to justify sticking around to see if your aim was true or not, where on a practice run, you can see where you dropped, where they landed and learn to adjust your aim. Also it makes sense that bombers don't get a lot of xp from being under fighter attack...bombers don't manuevre as a general rules (particularly the heavies) they just stay on course and hope their guns can manage to hit the bad guys. If there was a defensive gunnery stat, then bombers should be able to improve at that.

Flying Tiger -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/5/2010 5:05:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: War History quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford quote: ORIGINAL: War History The game "Pacific War" (Grigsby SSI 1995) had it set up so there was a percentage chance from 70 to 90 (over 90 experience was a 100% chance) so 5% per experience point of using alternate ordinance. I wouldn't be surprised if this same formula made it into stock WitP, but I can not confirm this. (I'll point out that in Pacific War, the Japanese got sig int rolls BTW. Players were allowed to target various bases and could do so multiple times to obtain more info on the base and yes if memory serves, the allies got 3 to 4 times the amount the Japanese got). Well in Civilization, the barbarian hordes can appear without need of a city to spawn them from. Try and do that as the human player! I guess I don't understand your point. Would this be an example of "trolling" that gets so many people banned from this forum? Because I can't see another reason for it other than trying to start something. Please stop. "trolling"???? No, thats when some guy wanders through threads trying to find something to pick on and start a fight. "joking" is totally different, but it requires "humor" - which is apparently a scarce resource!

Sheytan -> RE: upcoming patch - question (11/5/2010 5:29:09 AM)
[:D][:D][:D] Sad, but true! quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Like I´ve mentioned earlier, having squadrons with a total of several hundred missions and the average exp is around 65. These bomber squadrons have been bombing since day one of the war and are now in Nov 43. And experience is only going up due to missions, no chance to use the training mission, you will never reach 70 within the war using training so that´s not a possibility either. So, I think it should be definetely lowered because the expectation to train these groups up was a misinterpretation of how the game turns out IMO. Please don´t take this as a negative critism, I just think that if the feature is still there and the ppl in charge thought it should stay there, then the feature also should be changed to meet the new conditions in AE as you just can´t take WITP standard for AE. A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG". [:D][:D][:D][:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078125