RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (Full Version)

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

Message

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 4:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron The issue with this aspect is, as always, the far reaching consequeces of even a minor change. Makes WitPAE one real ba*** to tweak. I think SuluSea is spot on when he introduces a further aspect: op losses are not always, but sometimes, related to A2A, so its very difficult to get a clear picture of the interactions. You simply cannot assume to what an op loss is originally related to (e.g. AC previeousely damaged in an engagement crashing on landing because of the damage). I still would opt for the gun accuracy option to test.** While I agree, Ideally there would be a formation cohesion test that affects the accuracy of bomber defensive armaments; for all I know of the code, there already is. This should apply to all bomber formations, not just HBs. The example of what happened to Sakai when he "pounced" on a formation of TBFs comes to mind.

castor troy -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 4:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 LoBaron, Aye other factors also play a role but the issue is moving the model from where it is and without further data on the algorithm determining ops losses I can't say anything about those other factors except to say their inclusion has face validity. As to Castor Troy staying on topic and not twisting others' words etc... Good luck. I've come to think of him as almost the perfect embodiment of a counter-intelligence operation. He is such a blowhard uninterested with true study of the game model and just obsessed with bleating about it being broken that he discredits anyone who tries to have a serious discussion about improving the game model. Obviously he isn't a disinformation ploy or anything but I often think of him that way. It helps to understand him - although it doesn't make tolerating him any easier. oh how am I going to live on with that comment? Probably the same way I did in the past as it might be bearable if it comes from a true historian with his oh so realistic and/or historic approach to the game, no matter if vanilla or a phantasy mod. As long as you are going to be understood it suits me well. [:D]

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 4:49:04 PM)
oldman, Mind me asking why not? I'm curious as to whether you think the current rate of shooting down fighters is right ( which is what this attempts to fix ) or if there's a philosophical reason why you are against trying to bring in-game results more in keeping with historical results? Wirraway ace: Well, my understanding is the cannons were really quite similar. As to the MGs vs cannons... At close ranges the trajectories of both MGs and cannons were pretty similar and most ( if not all ) planes of the era did have a "fire all weapons" button on the stick. They could choose to fire MGs, cannons or both. From what I've seen, at close range, this isn't what is happening in-game.

LoBaron -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 5:26:01 PM)
Wirraway_Ace, the cohesion roll is another interesting point. I wasn´t aware that it does only apply to heavies though. When you look at the combat replay, more so in large engagements against heavy bombers, there is sometimes a "driven away by defensive fire" message with a chance to result in in a damaged/destroyed fighter which is not connected to a previous "A fires at B" message. I always assumed that these are additional dice rolls initiated by the bombers cohesion in larger formations and I also have the impression that it happens more often when engaging larger bomber groups. One wonders if toning down this effect is enough to have the desired result...

1EyedJacks -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 5:28:07 PM)
These are the two day-raids for 5.22.42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 33 Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 18 Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 10 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11 Roughly 70/30 Fighter/Bomber with a little over 40 of those fighters armed with a 20mm gun. Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 29 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 10 damaged A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed on ground Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 damaged Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed on ground G3M2 Nell: 1 destroyed on ground Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 25 damaged Japanese ground losses: 5 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Airbase hits 4 Airbase supply hits 2 Runway hits 35 Aircraft Attacking: 4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (33 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 33 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 Raid is overhead 84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 14000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes 77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 12000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes 77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 10000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes 260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (6 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 8000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes 264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 20000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 20 Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 9 Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 4 Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 8 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 9 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed on ground Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 4 damaged Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged Airbase hits 2 Runway hits 2 Aircraft Attacking: 6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 8000 feet Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 20 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 8000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 250 minutes 77th Sentai Det A with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 8000 Raid is overhead 77th Sentai Det B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 8000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes 264th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 9000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes 84th I.F.Chutai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 8000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes 260th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 8000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 61 minutes Notes: @ Singapore: Serviceable/Maint/Damage/Reserve - these are the fighter units assigned Day Ops. I'm unsure if any fighter groups assigned Night Ops missions would have scrambled but some aircarft from those units could be in the ground losses... 12 Oscar-Ic now 6/0/2/0 10 Oscar-Ic now 3/0/5/0 12 Oscar-Ic now 6/0/4/0 27 Oscar-Ib now 14/0/8/0 31 NickKAIa now 14/0/12/0 45 A6M2 Zero now 28/0/3/1 Just as an FYI some of these units had aircraft in the shop from the day B4. Also airfield was pummeled. All fighters set @ 80/20 CAP/Rest. Moral is taking a beating on a few of my air groups - more then usual - probably due to the pummeling of the base by the 4E bombers? There was some AAA activity but I didn't see any 4E go down. I think Flak damage message came up 5 times during the 1st attack. [image]local://upfiles/20162/4BAA5FE560244BFD86027C9064D06F7B.jpg[/image]

SuluSea -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 6:08:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron SuluSea, I too think that the heavies are modelled close to real. The only slight deviation I see is their ability to kill Japanese fighters. I say that's something that could be looked at and tweaked down a notch because I believe in my experience playing this game it lookes like they are too effective at shooting down opponents and also considering ops losses from aircraft the HB damage themselves. I wonder how much the defensive rating plays into that, I can say in my games the best defensive pilots go int my heavies and from my experience the mediums even with pilots of excellent defensive skill are a little too vulnerable IMO. I just use mediums were I expect little opposition or keeping heat on already closed airfields.

oldman45 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 6:42:15 PM)
In all the games that I have played I have never seen that many fighters shot down by 4E bombers. I have had my bombers damaged and spending a lot of time being repaired, which is what I expect. Part of the problem with PBEM is players will launch huge raids which seldom happened especially early in the war. That throws off the combat tables. The 20mm's on the Zero's are not that effective. It was proven in Europe that the slow firing 20mm did not work well in air-air combat. The changes you are talking about will change how the engine handles air combat and more 4E will be lost than should be. Find a good used bookstore and see if you can locate the Army Airforces in WWII. Its a multi-volumn set but it has after action reports and I found it to be rather informative. Pretty dry reading but you will see that the heavy bombers had very high survivablity against the Oscars and Zero's.

LoBaron -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 6:54:49 PM)
oldman45 you have maybe just made a statement which could end the debate. We are using ahistorical examples here while expecting historical results. In small raids I usually do not see lots of fighters shot down by heavies. Compared to the european theatre the air battles were on a smaller scale in the PTO simply because the targets did not justify high numbers of heavy bombers assigned and the logistical difficulties to keep a 100 plane heavy bomber fleet operational in a tropical ****hole. The game engine, while greatly improved compared to the original WitP, makes these raids possible, if not easy. The cost for the Allied player to assign 60 forts on a mission instead of 10 is not comparable to the cost it was in RL. If a commander ordered a huge strike on an airfield with a couple of tents, a dirt landing strip and a few dispersed fighters he would be talked down in no time... Nemo, what do you think?

CapAndGown -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 7:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron oldman45 you have maybe just made a statement which could end the debate. We are using ahistorical examples here while expecting historical results. In small raids I usually do not see lots of fighters shot down by heavies. Compared to the european theatre the air battles were on a smaller scale in the PTO simply because the targets did not justify high numbers of heavy bombers assigned and the logistical difficulties to keep a 100 plane heavy bomber fleet operational in a tropical ****hole. The game engine, while greatly improved compared to the original WitP, makes these raids possible, if not easy. The cost for the Allied player to assign 60 forts on a mission instead of 10 is not comparable to the cost it was in RL. If a commander ordered a huge strike on an airfield with a couple of tents, a dirt landing strip and a few dispersed fighters he would be talked down in no time... Finally, a comment I can get behind. I have almost no problems with the model as it now exists. I do not have hordes of fighters downed by allied 4E. The lower durability ones do have this problem somewhat, like Oscars and Zero's. So I use Nicks and Tojo's instead. Problem solved. And as I noted before, I can often knock down 10% or more allied 4E raiders. And now that I have Georges and Franks, and even Tojo IIc's, I could demolish any unescorted, or non-"pre-swept" raid. No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5.

LoBaron -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 7:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5. Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already. Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also? If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes.

CapAndGown -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 8:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5. Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already. Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also? If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes. This will not fly (so to speak). As I understand it, if you have 250 aviation support, you can fly unlimited number of planes from that airfield (subject to stacking and administrative limits). For the allies, that is extremely easy. (For the Japanese it is practically impossible [:D])

LoBaron -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 8:14:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5. Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already. Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also? If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes. This will not fly (so to speak). As I understand it, if you have 250 aviation support, you can fly unlimited number of planes from that airfield (subject to stacking and administrative limits). For the allies, that is extremely easy. (For the Japanese it is practically impossible [:D]) I thought there was only a fly-everything bonuscard for lvl 10 airfields. I wonder what the reason was for implementing no-limit AS when it reaches 250. [X(] Why not simply get rid of that unlimited thing? Worst thing that can happen is you have to stand down a couple of squads if you got so much you don´t know what to do with it. That might aditionally help convincing the player to distribute his forces.

oldman45 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 8:57:09 PM)
This is similar to the thread in the main forum about AA. It isn't over powered, it is located on bases in numbers the designers did not imagine nor would the historical leaders ever have the luxury to stack it like we do. The engine works pretty good imo, but once players start stacking everything up, air raids, AAA, arty to name a few, things go wrong and people freak out.

LoBaron -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 9:22:49 PM)
Well personally I can live with the game as it is. It is close to perfect, much closer than WitP ever was, including mods. On the other hand, exactly where the player factor comes in, there is something very subtle which draws a line through the whole AE design process: The desire to limit player created and potentially ahistorical situations - so dreaded and discussed in the predecessor - while keeping the game as open and flexible as possible. (AF stacking limit and atolls for example come to mind, or supply/fuel wastage depending on base size) So what speaks against trying to further improve in a direction where WitPAE is already extremely successful? If it is very risky or could cause issues on other parts of the game I vote for no. If its doable and results in more historical battle situations without impacting other areas which are currently well balanced, why not? Noone is freaking out here (except maybe one or the other well known celebrity...), its just a discussion which could lead to ideas. [;)]

oldman45 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 10:09:13 PM)
The changes are an atempt to get ahistorical results in combat. Thats different than trying to get the game to allow more player options and not break. The early war Japanese aircraft had a very hard time shooting down the B-17's and B-24's. Players may not like that but its just the way it was. If I were to given a chance to change something, its how airfields are damaged, but thats not what this thread is about.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 10:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 The changes are an atempt to get ahistorical results in combat. Thats different than trying to get the game to allow more player options and not break. The early war Japanese aircraft had a very hard time shooting down the B-17's and B-24's. Players may not like that but its just the way it was. As the guy standing on the sidelines throwing ripe fruit I have to add to this excelent point that demanding "historical" shoot down rates of 4E Allied bombers is laughable in the face of unlimited Japanese aircraft production. It's like that old Doritos slogan" "Destroy all you want. We'll make more." I'll discuss making bombers easier to shoot down when the Japanese have a ceiling on fighter production, or I can make more 4Es when I get bad die rolls. In my June 1943 game, Akyab has 150+ IJA fighter sweeps overhead about four days a week. I can get maybe 10 RAF fighters up to respond. (But the P-47s are on the way. Finally.)

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 10:40:07 PM)
Just to be clear since this is rapidly wandering off-course from modelling fighters vs bombers better ( a limited objective ) into a discussion about how people "should" play the game etc. The SIMPLE focus of the discussion should, IMO, remain on getting the modelling of x fighters vs y bombers right when those planes meet in the air. All of the other stuff isn't possible to mod in. It may all be very useful in creating an elegant solution for AE 2 but it isn't germaine to this discussion. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with trying to get the model to give a reasonable result when 400 fighters face 400 bombers even if this matchup never happened in real life. Combat models always have to solve the problems posed by matchups which didn't happen. That's why we have a mathematical model instead of a simple "look-up table". Maybe the Japanese never sent up 400 fighters vs 400 bombers but the Germans did so using their results ( suitably altered for technical/tactical differences in fighters and bombers involved ) seems like a reasonable starting point for trying to get the model to be a bit better. The basic bottom line I see is that nothing in history or sheer common sense makes me think that an unstabilised hand-held 0.5cal MG sticking out into lateral slipstream out of the side of a B-17 has the same chance of hitting an approaching fighter as that fighter's wing-mounted armament has of hitting the B-17. In-game those two adversaries have the same chance of hitting one another and since the B17 box mounts far more guns with a chance of hitting we end up with the bombers often hitting the fighters before the fighters even get a shot off. This doesn't correspond to athe general thrust of history I'm aware of ( absenting the massively exaggerated claims by bomber gunners of course). Anyways, I should post the scenario in my AAR in a couple of hours so you'll get a chance to test it out then. Bottom line though.... There's just no point in trying to break the model to get historical outcomes from ahistorical force matchups. We should be trying to get historical outcomes from historical force matchups and accept ahistorical outcomes from ahistorical matchups. At that point in time whether or not you get ahistorical outcomes depends on play style ( as it should ) instead of someone borking the model so that B-17s never get shot down in quantity no matter what resistance they meet ( which strikes me as the worst sort of game-contained revisionism ).

PresterJohn001 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 10:41:15 PM)
There is an issue though, allied 4 engined bombers, for the early to mid part of the war at least are the best air anti-fighter weapons the allies have, most excellent for clearing defending CAP at little real risk. I don't think that happened IRL. By issue, i mean a small tweak, there are lots of potential fixes but they all may have other consequences. I've not upgraded to the beta patch so maybe more efffective flak will resolve this issue.

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 10:54:34 PM)
quote: The changes are an atempt to get ahistorical results in combat. This is simply false. The changes are an attempt to get reasonable ( defined as believable given historical outcomes in the Pacific and Europe ) outcomes across the range of gametime and combat matchups. quote: The changes you are talking about will change how the engine handles air combat This is also incorrect. The engine will still handle air combat the exact same way as before. Bomber defensive armament will simply have reduced accuracy and so will hit fighters less often. This will impact on number of firing passes by fighters etc but the effect will be contained by two factors: 1. Fighters run out of ammo. 2. Bombers don't. So, without damage fighters won't have an infinite number of passes which allow them to down every bomber. We may see a slight rise in bomber losses as damage accrues but with more passes being made we should see more fighters being hit ( even with lower defensive armament accuracy ). A state of dynamic balance will be found - which shifts from year to year as bombers begin to have more well-stabilised turrets and fighters get armour and better armament. LoBaron, I have books which gave day by day accounts of the USAAF in the Pacific, Med and Western Europe. They detail each raid which went out, where it went, what opposition it met and what damage was done. Nothing in those books leads me to recognise the current ( hit the fighters and damage them before they even enter firing range ) model. With that said so long as the Germans had MG-armed and slow-firing 20mm cannon-armed fighters they didn't achieve much. When the Japanese have the same types of fighters they don't achieve much. They did, however, have the potential to make much more effective anti-bomber fighter types. This then borders on the whole production issue where people refuse to model something properly because the Allies don't get variable production while the Japanese do. I think this is not a valid position since you can't willingly limit the veracity of the combat model in order to compensate for a shortcoming in the logistics model. That just doesn't make sense. The solution is to mod in variable production for the Allies ( or in a 1945/46 scenario give them such large numbers of fighters that they can swamp any number of fighters Japan can theoretically make ) and/or argue for a codebase change in AE2. Modding in variable production is possible and I've explained several times previously how this can be done in a manner befitting the strategic opportunity costs of this.

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 10:59:19 PM)
PresterJohn, Two issues with using FlAK as the solution... 1. If the resolution of air combat between fighters and defensive bomber armament is broken shouldn't we try to fix that particular portion of the A2A matchup rather than relying on FlAK to make up for its borking? 2. If I wanted to use B17s to sweep a field without taking massive FlAK losses I'd just send them in at 33,000 feet or something and no matter how murderous you made FlAK I'd avoid any sort of counterbalancing effect you'd like it to have. The latter reason prevents your solution working, the former shows why even if it did it is still better to get at the heart of the problem. I will say though it has been nice to see some people on the thread engaging with the concept of trying to brainstorm ways of fixing the issue. Thanks.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 11:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 This then borders on the whole production issue where people refuse to model something properly because the Allies don't get variable production while the Japanese do. I think this is not a valid position since you can't willingly limit the veracity of the combat model in order to compensate for a shortcoming in the logistics model. That just doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense. To argue for historical combat models, when the primary variable, the largest issue for combat planners--number of assets available--is ahistorical on its face, is illogical. If Allied air planners had faced unlimited Japanese aircraft throughout the war, aircraft which DID NOT BURN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, they would have designed a much different air war and different mid- and late-war designs. Endlessly arguing over tweaking cannon vs. MG performance is whistling past the graveyard. The game isn't historic. The Japanese can easily wage an air war which isn't historic. Making it easier for Japanese to shoot down fixed numbers of 4E bombers isn't historic when measured against the relative asset pools. The rest is just noise. Allied variable production would be nice, but we're not going to get it from the devs, at least under the announced patch philosophy. Adding it would so fundamentally change the game balance that they might as well start over and charge for the new version. An interim solution is to use the editor and add some Allied production.

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/1/2011 11:56:43 PM)
Well, we have a philosophical difference then. I prefer to fix the air combat model and logistics model separately. You seek to fix the logistics model without fixing the air combat model - which will simply shift the amount of error in a different direction. I think that's not the best solution. I do trust that we can simply agree to differ. As to variable production only being available via the developers. Not so, it can be modded in relatively easily once you approach it indirectly. I've explained, several times, how this can be done.

oldman45 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 12:38:59 AM)
If I am reading your post right, you are trying to get European results in the Pacific. I cannot claim to know all that much about the air-war in Europe other than the bombers suffered horribly. But, they were up against radar, ground controllers, and better armed planes. You just cannot compare the two theaters.

Nemo121 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 12:57:31 AM)
Oldman, The comparison is valid if the situation is similar ( radar, better armed and armoured planes etc ). That mightn't have pertained in 1942 but particularly in the time period I am correcting this for ( late 45 ) at least some of these elements were present. Anyways I think the situation comes down to me being interested in what might have been and you being much more interested in what was. With what was Europe is of little value. With what might have been it has some value. That's fine, different strokes for different folks. FWIW I'm posting the zip file containing the scenario to my Armageddon AAR. I've run tests with B-17s, B-29-25s and B-29Bs Even when facing 600+ fighters the 600 or so B29-25s suffer roughly 70 bombers downed. I don't find this difficult to believe given that they were up against many cannon-armed fighters. They took down about 45 enemy fighters with them ( again seems fairly reasonable given the lack of escorts etc ). When B-29Bs went in they suffered horribly with the bomber groups suffering almost 50% losses ( the B29Bs only have a single rear-facing position ). So this shows the difference between having good defensive armament and nothing. Interestingly a statistically significant number of fighters made frontal passes on the B-29Bs especially when compared to the B29-25s. Whether this is intentionally coded to come in where the defensive armament cannot bear or whether it was just the result of B-29-25s beating off those attacks and thus the difference not being in attempted attacks but only in effective passes. The B-17s did slightly worse thean the B29-25s as their defensive armament isn't as good but they still managed to fend off quite a few fighters and downed a few too. They went down easier too though.

oldman45 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 6:26:32 AM)
Your tests were just the late war jap fighters? How did it work when the early war fighters went up against the B-17/B-24. The effects on the B-29's sounds about right. I would have to look up some numbers. I should have something on Sunday.

Puhis -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 6:48:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5. Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already. Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also? If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes. This will not fly (so to speak). As I understand it, if you have 250 aviation support, you can fly unlimited number of planes from that airfield (subject to stacking and administrative limits). For the allies, that is extremely easy. (For the Japanese it is practically impossible [:D]) I thought there was only a fly-everything bonuscard for lvl 10 airfields. I wonder what the reason was for implementing no-limit AS when it reaches 250. [X(] Why not simply get rid of that unlimited thing? Worst thing that can happen is you have to stand down a couple of squads if you got so much you don´t know what to do with it. That might aditionally help convincing the player to distribute his forces. That 250 AS rule have been there since Uncommon Valor, so I doubt it's going to change... It's very weird rule IMO...

bradfordkay -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 7:55:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5. Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already. Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also? If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes. This will not fly (so to speak). As I understand it, if you have 250 aviation support, you can fly unlimited number of planes from that airfield (subject to stacking and administrative limits). For the allies, that is extremely easy. (For the Japanese it is practically impossible [:D]) I thought there was only a fly-everything bonuscard for lvl 10 airfields. I wonder what the reason was for implementing no-limit AS when it reaches 250. [X(] Why not simply get rid of that unlimited thing? Worst thing that can happen is you have to stand down a couple of squads if you got so much you don´t know what to do with it. That might aditionally help convincing the player to distribute his forces. That 250 AS rule have been there since Uncommon Valor, so I doubt it's going to change... It's very weird rule IMO... If you have less air support than required then level bomber missions (only) are reduced in size by 25%. The overstacking rules are null for both level 9 and level 10 airbases, but that is a separate rule form the air support rule.

LoBaron -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 9:27:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown No, the only problem I am really seeing is that the 4E's fly too much. Instead of a service rating of 4, which is, I admit already high, perhaps they should have a service rating of 5. Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already. Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also? If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes. This will not fly (so to speak). As I understand it, if you have 250 aviation support, you can fly unlimited number of planes from that airfield (subject to stacking and administrative limits). For the allies, that is extremely easy. (For the Japanese it is practically impossible [:D]) I thought there was only a fly-everything bonuscard for lvl 10 airfields. I wonder what the reason was for implementing no-limit AS when it reaches 250. [X(] Why not simply get rid of that unlimited thing? Worst thing that can happen is you have to stand down a couple of squads if you got so much you don´t know what to do with it. That might aditionally help convincing the player to distribute his forces. That 250 AS rule have been there since Uncommon Valor, so I doubt it's going to change... It's very weird rule IMO... If you have less air support than required then level bomber missions (only) are reduced in size by 25%. The overstacking rules are null for both level 9 and level 10 airbases, but that is a separate rule form the air support rule. I did not get a fixed rule dating back to UV for how long? 8 years? Ouch! Thanks Puhis... [sm=Crazy-1271.gif] bradforkay: Ok just to be clear about why I was proposing this (and to sum up maybe) It seems that our "ahistorical" loss rates when seonding IJ fighters against heavy bombers is due to the fact that the allied player is able to send concentrated strikes with above average numbers of planes against minor targets beginning early in the war while there are no advanced airframes around which could be able to shoot them down. (and not due to the fact that bomber defensive armament is overpowered or too accurate) At least this is the conclusion that is most plausable in my opinion. So the solution (if we even can agree to any, which I currently doubt looking at the discussion) could be: set an additional barrier for the Allied side to mass heavy bombers early in the war. We discussed two options up to now: Upping the service rating of heavies from 4 to 5: This is very easy and fast, can be done via the editor IIRC and its done. My point against this solution is that it further increases the downtime of heavies which is already on the upper limit of high and the simpel solution for the Allied player would be, well, bring in more bombers. Making heavy bombers consume more AS: If we up the AS required for heavies from 1 to 2 or even 3, a heavy bomber unit would eat up AS and this could, most of all early in the war limit the bombers that can be stationed at a single base with enough air support. I am NOT proposing this to force the 25% reduction in strike size because there the same solution applies as in the above point. I am proposing this because you need AS to repair damaged planes. An AF out of AS gets long delays repairing its aircraft. So the player is absolutely able to send huge attacks from a base for 1 day, after that the ready AC number drops significantly because of damaged bombers and the missing air support does the rest. Its just an idea and as it seems crushed by the 250AS rule anyway but what the hell, interesting discussion up to now...

Alfred -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 9:48:04 AM)
LoBaron, Further to your post #88, some additional approaches which are not usually identified are: 1. Increase considerably the consumption of supply be 4E (by increasing logistic requirements, the tempo and weight of operations could be affected and the alleged ill effects suffered by the Japanese thereby mitigated) 2. Increase considerably the VPs awarded for the destruction of 4E (currently 2 points per destroyed 4E, if increased to say 10 points per 4E, it would bring some compensation to Japanese players who play to win/not lose on VPs) 3. Introduce a time delay for any air unit transferred before it becomes operational at the new airbase (would make concentration of multiple 4E units into a flying circus and their easy relocation to new sectors to sequentially supress Japanese airbases more difficult) Alfred

PresterJohn001 -> RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game. (1/2/2011 9:57:32 AM)
The suggestion that Japanese airframe production is overpowered has been asserted, but not evidenced. The only discussion i have seen seemed to show if anything Japanese airframes were being underproduced. The distribution is different but thats to be expected. Its also a red herring and irrelevant to whether the 4e bomber model works well. Allowing the Japanese control over airframe production but not the Allies is a game design decision. I think the argument that bomber turrets should not be as accurate as fighter guns is a very good one, logical and in line with history. A careful tweak here could result in more historic results throughout the war and encourage more realistic use of the aircraft.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.59375