Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (Full Version)

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



Message

ADB123 -> Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 4:45:39 AM)

I've been mulling over the results of the massive CV Air battles in the PzB/Andy AAR and the Castor Troy AAR. In the first the Japanese side obliterated the Allied CV forces in Fall of 1943. In the second the Allied side obliterated the Japanese CV forces in the Spring of 1944. Both battles bother me, but I'm having difficulty pointing my finger on why. The “why” is important to me, because I am playing two pbems, one Allied, one Japanese, and I want to figure out how to avoid disasters of the sorts that were seen in both of those AARs.

I get the feeling that the results that I see in those AARs are due in part to the unbelievably huge forces that the opponents are bringing together. The battles seem to involve too many ships and too many planes. It seems too easy in the game to amass inconcievable numbers at a single place and time.

And it seems to me that when those incredibly huge assemblies of forces become subject to the random effects that are such an inherent part, if not the “soul” of the game engine, the result can be inexplicable.

So what does one do to avoid disaster?

- Hope that you are the “lucky” one who dishes out the disaster instead of receiving it, and attempt to optimize your chances for success? (The gambler's dream.)

- Avoid amassing gigantic forces while attempting to avoid your opponent's behemoth? (“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”)

- Abandon aircraft carriers altogether and place your air forces in “unsinkable” land bases? (“War in Asia”)

None of those options really appeal to me, but spending months or years of game play time just to have everything decided by a single “roll of the dice” appeals to me even less.

So what other options do you think there are in a campaign game to avoid total destruction in a day?



vettim89 -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 5:15:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I've been mulling over the results of the massive CV Air battles in the PzB/Andy AAR and the Castor Troy AAR. In the first the Japanese side obliterated the Allied CV forces in Fall of 1943. In the second the Allied side obliterated the Japanese CV forces in the Spring of 1944. Both battles bother me, but I'm having difficulty pointing my finger on why. The “why” is important to me, because I am playing two pbems, one Allied, one Japanese, and I want to figure out how to avoid disasters of the sorts that were seen in both of those AARs.

I get the feeling that the results that I see in those AARs are due in part to the unbelievably huge forces that the opponents are bringing together. The battles seem to involve too many ships and too many planes. It seems too easy in the game to amass inconcievable numbers at a single place and time.

And it seems to me that when those incredibly huge assemblies of forces become subject to the random effects that are such an inherent part, if not the “soul” of the game engine, the result can be inexplicable.

So what does one do to avoid disaster?

- Hope that you are the “lucky” one who dishes out the disaster instead of receiving it, and attempt to optimize your chances for success? (The gambler's dream.)

- Avoid amassing gigantic forces while attempting to avoid your opponent's behemoth? (“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”)

- Abandon aircraft carriers altogether and place your air forces in “unsinkable” land bases? (“War in Asia”)

None of those options really appeal to me, but spending months or years of game play time just to have everything decided by a single “roll of the dice” appeals to me even less.

So what other options do you think there are in a campaign game to avoid total destruction in a day?



I think one of the factors you see in play is that players of AE tend to be much bolder than the RL commanders. Ergo, they put their forces in places that allow for the possibility of a huge loss. The upside of that is that great risk can bring great reward. So if a player goes all in on a particular op, he may have an equal chance of failure as success. Especially on the Allied side, no RL general/admiral would have accepted even odds unless a lot was at stake (ala Midway).

Look at Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz. Both sides were still in the fight when those battles were broken off. RL commanders would call off an op when things started to go badly. AE commanders have a habit of going "Damn the torpedoes - FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!!!"



LoBaron -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 9:38:49 AM)

Concentrate your forces, fight on favourable ground, provide support and logistics, think when setting your TF composition, think when setting your TF position,
always be in front on recon and nav search, dont accept a battle if you are inferior or dont have to, keep your forces well and rested,
check the fuel stats, watch out for range differences of your attack planes, keep your ships upgraded all the time,...

And deny your opponent as much as possible of the above. [;)]

Easier said than done.


And btw, both AARs had lopsided battles because of quite obvious mistakes and in case of PzB really really good TF positioning as he is the master of The Range Advantage.
A very dangerous talent.



PaxMondo -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 1:20:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

... and in case of PzB really really good TF positioning as he is the master of The Range Advantage.
A very dangerous talent.

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure he is a genetically engineered X-Man with ESP. He seems to have a way of accurately seeing the future to know where the enemy CV's are going to be the next turn and then use his Range Advantage skill to decimate them.

[&o][&o][&o]



castor troy -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 3:19:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I've been mulling over the results of the massive CV Air battles in the PzB/Andy AAR and the Castor Troy AAR. In the first the Japanese side obliterated the Allied CV forces in Fall of 1943. In the second the Allied side obliterated the Japanese CV forces in the Spring of 1944. Both battles bother me, but I'm having difficulty pointing my finger on why. The “why” is important to me, because I am playing two pbems, one Allied, one Japanese, and I want to figure out how to avoid disasters of the sorts that were seen in both of those AARs.

I get the feeling that the results that I see in those AARs are due in part to the unbelievably huge forces that the opponents are bringing together. The battles seem to involve too many ships and too many planes. It seems too easy in the game to amass inconcievable numbers at a single place and time.

And it seems to me that when those incredibly huge assemblies of forces become subject to the random effects that are such an inherent part, if not the “soul” of the game engine, the result can be inexplicable.

So what does one do to avoid disaster?

- Hope that you are the “lucky” one who dishes out the disaster instead of receiving it, and attempt to optimize your chances for success? (The gambler's dream.)

- Avoid amassing gigantic forces while attempting to avoid your opponent's behemoth? (“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”)

- Abandon aircraft carriers altogether and place your air forces in “unsinkable” land bases? (“War in Asia”)

None of those options really appeal to me, but spending months or years of game play time just to have everything decided by a single “roll of the dice” appeals to me even less.

So what other options do you think there are in a campaign game to avoid total destruction in a day?




it´s all about numbers, more so for the Allied IMO. Why? Because they´ve got nothing that can compete with IJN torp bombers. Judy is at least as good as a Dauntless, a Helldiver perhaps slightly better than a Judy (only because the Helldiver carries another two 250lb bombs that can slightly hurt a ship if the 1000lb bomb misses). The Zeke is not much worse than the Hellcat, in my recent battle I´ve fielded probably 3 times more Hellcats than the enemy had Zekes but the exchange in fighters still was nearly 1:1. I´ve launched an uber/mega/super strike I´ve never seen before with something like 1200+ aircraft in one strike IIRC that faced only 150 Zekes on Cap. Even though the torp bombers were utter useless (a joke considering they´ve all had 70 torp skill), having hundreds of Helldivers means accomplishing the job easily (it was CLEAR sky). My Cap performed awfully, had 500 fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs) and they´ve achieved someting like 250 - 300 kills in total over the main fleet. 200 kills were achieved by a separate CVE TF with only 130 fighters.

Everything else than a major victory for my fleet would have been more than surprising for me, guess we had 3:1 advantage of aircraft with at least twice or three times the number of ships. More than 20 CV/CVL and another two dozen CVE were facing something like 8 CV and over a dozen CVL/CVE. My result was by far not as surprising as Andy/PzB´s result when 300 Hellcats did just nothing. Mine performed bad, Andy´s were non existant. In my case, I said it was a step forward from WITP as in WITP my Cap would have been bullet prove. In Andy´s case I would say the "non performance" of his Cap was as unrealistic as the uber Cap of WITP which has nothing to do with abstractions at all, otherwise I´m going to abstract a worm hole and a Klingon frigate into a battle. Andy´s Cap result was a joke, if not a bug, then a bad design outcome in this case. All these abstractions are going into the "they couldn´t find the enemy" direction, even though radar probably picked them up hundreds of miles away. "The enemy is reported coming in from the North, send all available Hellcats South!" or what? [8|]

1 on 1 I would always bet on the Japanese, because the Zekes do just as well as the Hellcat and the Kate/Jill are worth 3 USN torp bombers at least while the Japanese carry far more of them. But as soon as the odds are 2+:1 for the Allied, I would bet on them. Again, Andy´s outcome was stranger than mine IMO while you can´t really compare them as PzB was able to position his carriers 8 hexes away to launch a strike while Andy couldn´t but that was a design decision, for what reason ever. My carrier fleet ended up 5 hexes away of the IJN carriers and the IJN was hit by a hammer being at least three times bigger than Andy´s force.



castor troy -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 3:27:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Concentrate your forces, fight on favourable ground, provide support and logistics, think when setting your TF composition, think when setting your TF position,
always be in front on recon and nav search, dont accept a battle if you are inferior or dont have to, keep your forces well and rested,
check the fuel stats, watch out for range differences of your attack planes, keep your ships upgraded all the time,...

And deny your opponent as much as possible of the above. [;)]

Easier said than done.


And btw, both AARs had lopsided battles because of quite obvious mistakes and in case of PzB really really good TF positioning as he is the master of The Range Advantage.
A very dangerous talent.



the only mistake my opponent made was ending up near my carriers. If you´re a hobby boxer, you don´t want to box Mike Tyson in his best years so the only mistake you can make is going into the ring with him. There is the point in the game when you just can´t match the Allied anymore (I could have sent more than a dozen additional CVE) and my opponent´s plan wasn´t to attack my carrier fleet anyway. Again, that´s the only mistake I could make out, everything else wasn´t in control of the players.



LoBaron -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 4:29:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Concentrate your forces, fight on favourable ground, provide support and logistics, think when setting your TF composition, think when setting your TF position,
always be in front on recon and nav search, dont accept a battle if you are inferior or dont have to, keep your forces well and rested,
check the fuel stats, watch out for range differences of your attack planes, keep your ships upgraded all the time,...

And deny your opponent as much as possible of the above. [;)]

Easier said than done.


And btw, both AARs had lopsided battles because of quite obvious mistakes and in case of PzB really really good TF positioning as he is the master of The Range Advantage.
A very dangerous talent.



the only mistake my opponent made was ending up near my carriers. If you´re a hobby boxer, you don´t want to box Mike Tyson in his best years so the only mistake you can make is going into the ring with him. There is the point in the game when you just can´t match the Allied anymore (I could have sent more than a dozen additional CVE) and my opponent´s plan wasn´t to attack my carrier fleet anyway. Again, that´s the only mistake I could make out, everything else wasn´t in control of the players.


...and thats only the ones I see on a short glance because I don´t know his TF composition, the state of his pilots, the settings of his attack squads, and loads of other things.
There is a reason why he ended up near your carriers when he shouldn´t have. You think you stated a reason? Truth is you state the result.



bush -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 4:51:54 PM)

I think luck is much more important than we give it credit. You can take the time to set up your dispositions as best you can, and have seemingly the best force at hand, but it still comes down to luck - I am thinking of the CV advantage the IJN had at Midway; at Peral there were no American CVs present; Kurita turns his SURF TF away when the road is open to the transports; etc., etc., etc.



LoBaron -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 5:27:32 PM)

bushpsu you are of course right. Luck is a factor in the game that should never be underestimated.

My response was to ADB123, because he - giving CTs victory as Allies and Andy Macs defeat as examples - seemed to
ponder on the question whether it is all about waiting for the single fateful carrier clash, the outcome governed by luck, and
then continuing the game shaped by this engagement.

And this is not the case. Admittedly we have 2 very deciding CV engagements as examples, and luck was a factor in both,
but the essence of strategic and tactical planning is to minimize the impact of luck and remove it as the governing factor of any battle,
so you emerge scratched but not defeated in case luck turns against you.

To take these two battles as an example and come to the conclusion that, because one time the Allies and the other time the Japanese
came out on top - very on top -, its all about luck, is the wrong way to see it in my opinion.



Hortlund -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 6:03:45 PM)

Game the game-engine => skewed results.



oldman45 -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/6/2011 8:45:01 PM)

I believe the game engine does not do well when there are huge numbers involved. Small actions tend to have results that make sense while the really big ones strange things happen.



PaxMondo -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 1:42:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

bushpsu you are of course right. Luck is a factor in the game that should never be underestimated.

...

To take these two battles as an example and come to the conclusion that, because one time the Allies and the other time the Japanese
came out on top - very on top -, its all about luck, is the wrong way to see it in my opinion.

+1

well stated ...



ADB123 -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 2:00:44 AM)

quote:

To take these two battles as an example and come to the conclusion that, because one time the Allies and the other time the Japanese
came out on top - very on top -, its all about luck, is the wrong way to see it in my opinion.


I don't believe "its all about luck"; instead I have the feeling that if you push the Game too far beyond its limits, such as creating Mega Forces, luck will play too much of a role and counter planning and preparation.



vettim89 -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 5:01:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

quote:

To take these two battles as an example and come to the conclusion that, because one time the Allies and the other time the Japanese
came out on top - very on top -, its all about luck, is the wrong way to see it in my opinion.


I don't believe "its all about luck"; instead I have the feeling that if you push the Game too far beyond its limits, such as creating Mega Forces, luck will play too much of a role and counter planning and preparation.



This is going to sound like I am implying some unfair play by people and it is not what I mean at all. So, please no one take offense at what I am about to say.

Some players are excellant strategic players. They can see what is going on on the whole map and discern those little clues about enemy dispositions and intents. They are able to anticipate not only what is about to happen but what can happen in the aftermath of current operations. They are like the superb chess player who is thinking 20 moves ahead. These people can accomplish what most of us consider impossible. Nemo comes to mind as a person fitting this description

Others are excellant tactical players. They are excellant at anticipating what their opponent's next moves are going to be. They have a firm grasp of how the various units will perform in a given situation and know how to put those units in the right place to give them the best chance to succeed. Like Arleigh Burke at Cape St. George, they have the uncanny ability to anticipate when there opponent is going to make a counter move and have their units right in the prefect position when it happens. PZB's understanding of the proper range to put his CVTF at and the perfect anticipation of where he expected AndyMac's CVTF to be is an excellant example of this.

Of course, then there are those that are both of the above and they are the most dangerous opponents of all to face

But there is a third type of expert. This is the person that may be very adept at the above two facets of game play but has another advantage. These people have an excellant understanding of how AE actually works. They have an excellant feel for how the game will handle certain situations regardless of tactics. They understand they little nuances of placing orders and arranging forces that will make the game give them the results they are after. These players will make little statements like I know my opponent has such and such of a dispositionat this base but I'm not worried because I know a way around that. The "way around that" is neither tactical nor strategic; its playing the system. As I said, I do not mean to be putting these people down. In truth I admire them and their ability to see between the lines of computer code. What I am saying that sometimes having a better understanding of how the system works gives a player an advantage that can skew results.

Before anybody gets their feather ruffled, I do not in any way mean to imply that this was in play with either Cantona nor PZB. Cantona is a very experienced and well nuanced player. I have admired PZB's amazing abilities since he took Karachi out in WiTP. He is one of the best players of the game that frequents this forums




crsutton -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 5:28:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

bushpsu you are of course right. Luck is a factor in the game that should never be underestimated.

My response was to ADB123, because he - giving CTs victory as Allies and Andy Macs defeat as examples - seemed to
ponder on the question whether it is all about waiting for the single fateful carrier clash, the outcome governed by luck, and
then continuing the game shaped by this engagement.

And this is not the case. Admittedly we have 2 very deciding CV engagements as examples, and luck was a factor in both,
but the essence of strategic and tactical planning is to minimize the impact of luck and remove it as the governing factor of any battle,
so you emerge scratched but not defeated in case luck turns against you.

To take these two battles as an example and come to the conclusion that, because one time the Allies and the other time the Japanese
came out on top - very on top -, its all about luck, is the wrong way to see it in my opinion.


And we should point out that these are not the only examples. Plenty of carrier battles have ended in inclusive or bloody draws.... Two examples of the extreme are not the best to use.



brian800000 -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 5:29:34 AM)

I'm not sure the Andy / PzB outcome was so bad (I've been reading that AAR). The Japanese launched around 500 planes, with a bit over half being bombers. They scored about 40 hits. I do think the casualties for the japanese should have been higher, but that doesn't seem like a crazy outcome to me. The Allies had a bunch of fleets spread out in a 40 mile hex--given the size and the number of targets, I'm not sure you can assume the CAP wouldn't have broken down.

[With the caveat that with a slight advantage in pilot skill the japanese can compete at parity with Allied aircraft in late 1943. By that point, the allies were dominating the air war, and I'm skeptical that all Japan needed to do to change that was rotate guys through China on training missions and have them fly cap for a couple months in an out of the way spot]



topeverest -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 6:22:34 AM)

Having been in my share of huge CV battles, I have found that small decisions or events tend to be the causes for severe results (when they occur). This of course assumes that your forces arent outnumbered or out-qualitied. BTW, I think this is the entire point of the game. IMHO, winning the game usually comes down to a handful of major naval confrontations. Succed, and the clock ticks in your favor.

The single biggest factor I have seen is fighter to CAP results. This is usually where decisive results occur. This includes pilot quality and airframe superiority. These factors I feel are mostly in player control. So I suggest carefully considering the CAP and escort settings in all CV battles. Let me just state that just a minor difference in pilot quality or numbers can turn a battle.

I jump the distance to target next. The closer to the enemy, the more damage that will be wrought (usually) because planes tend to fly more than once or more of them fly directly at the enemy CV's. This is a magnifier. If you are superior, you typically are doubly superior at close range.

In the most complex battles with many or even dozens of task forces, luck will play more of a factor, espceially when those task forces are between the main CV combatants. This will cause the air compliments to shard their attacks much more.

One cannot forget local weather. I have been both on the winning and losing side of favorable CV weather. Great when you are the winner, and horrible when you are the loser.

Lets not forget that spotting levels can and do affect outcomes of battles. I cant prove it, but lower detection levels on the enemy usually equates to smaller strikes and lower damage. I always over search.

Lastly commanders will affect results. One bad commander in the wrong place...and you more likely to be on the losing side.

So be comfortable with your commands and carefully examine your results to determine why the battles went the way they did. It will be pretty obvious in most occasions.



viberpol -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 8:19:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123
I've been mulling over the results of the massive CV Air battles in the PzB/Andy AAR and the Castor Troy AAR. In the first the Japanese side obliterated the Allied CV forces in Fall of 1943. In the second the Allied side obliterated the Japanese CV forces in the Spring of 1944. Both battles bother me, but I'm having difficulty pointing my finger on why.
(...)
So what other options do you think there are in a campaign game to avoid total destruction in a day?


Limit (as yet only by HR) to limit max number of (operational/that take part in action) planes available in a single hex.
Airfields: 25 per level, CVTF max 300-350.

Being z veteran of old days WITP I remember major mothers of all battles to be really bloody baths. We all hated and loved the routine. But... sometimes even 1000 planes were shot down by CAP, which means that losses in capital ships were not so significant.

AE changed the air model so that it's more a rule than an exception that with significant raid more planes go through CAP & hit the targets which, with determined players looking for "all or nothing", usually mean heavy ship losses.

My logic is simple.
Less aircrafts = smaller raids = less hits = more clashes = longer game = more fun for both players



obvert -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 1:13:05 PM)

As stated above in various ways it seems part of the problem in several of the cases of having huge forces come together is that EACH side has huge forces in the area. Thus luck of the search, strike distance, weather, and the other factors are multiplied. This also seems to be the case ITRW. The big battles had big losses on at least one side. Midway, Marianas, Leyte Gulf, etc.

Most of these happened later in the war. It does seem a bit of care and spreading forces between theaters would limit this kind of result. If you use LBA and 2-4 carriers at least you won't lose the entire campaign if the battle goes all wonky.




bush -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 2:38:45 PM)

vettim89,

No offense taken at your description of player type #3. Compounding that is when they are matched against someone who has a misconception/misunderstanding about a certain aspect of the game. If these 2 factors are on a collision course, the result can be Tyson vs. Spinks - game over in 90 seconds. This happened to me a long time ago playing SPI's Wacht Am Rhein I think that is still one of the reasons to this day that I do not want to play a PBEM game - the fear that my human opponent will know something I don't about the GAME. If the AI does, well, its just cheating, right?



Canoerebel -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 4:23:34 PM)

Sometimes knowledge about the internal mechanics of a game can turn things really ugly. I once played a PBEM match of "Fighting Flattops," a carrier-based game set in the Coral Sea. My opponent, the Japanese player, knew that his carriers could only travel xx in a single turn, but that his destroyers could travel xx+2 during that turn. He also learned that if he "merged" the carriers with the destroyers at the end of a turn, said merger would in effect allow the carriers to travel xx+2 each turn. He did that routine all the way across the Coral Sea, so I suddenly found myself facing Japanese carriers far, far in advance of where they could have been.

It took me a little bit of thinking to figure out what had happened. I confonted my opponent and he owned up to it, which is more than most people would do. In a way, people who are able to pick apart code and find advantages that have nothing to do with real life or with what the game intends to model as real life are doing the same thing.



LoBaron -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/7/2011 5:11:09 PM)

Agreed Canorebel. But thats cheating and/or using an exploit.
Playing an opponent who does this repeatedly and on purpose would cause me to immediately terminate the PBEM without
any second thoughts about my own performance.

bushpsu, don´t get impression that knowledge about game mechanics makes an opponent unbeatable by default. AE is a game that is enjoyable most
if the experience level of the opponents is similar, or the more experienced player supports his opponent with his knowledge.
It is a long time commitment anyway, so the basic rule is you have to get along with the guy you play against (at least that applies to the grand campaign).

There is no fun in beating somebody because you know more about how to game the game, that is similar to a racing simulation where one player knows all the shortcuts
of the track.

The satisfaciton in my opinion comes from the challenges your opponent provides and using exploits makes this experience impossible.

As I said: You don´t always have to be at the same level to experience this. Accept that it is a learning experience and find a PBEM partner who is willing to help you there.
I promise you there are many of those around here.



castor troy -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 7:44:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

bushpsu you are of course right. Luck is a factor in the game that should never be underestimated.

My response was to ADB123, because he - giving CTs victory as Allies and Andy Macs defeat as examples - seemed to
ponder on the question whether it is all about waiting for the single fateful carrier clash, the outcome governed by luck, and
then continuing the game shaped by this engagement.

And this is not the case. Admittedly we have 2 very deciding CV engagements as examples, and luck was a factor in both,
but the essence of strategic and tactical planning is to minimize the impact of luck and remove it as the governing factor of any battle,
so you emerge scratched but not defeated in case luck turns against you.

To take these two battles as an example and come to the conclusion that, because one time the Allies and the other time the Japanese
came out on top - very on top -, its all about luck, is the wrong way to see it in my opinion.


And we should point out that these are not the only examples. Plenty of carrier battles have ended in inclusive or bloody draws.... Two examples of the extreme are not the best to use.



and again I have to say that the result of my PBEM wasn´t that "extreme" IMO. Extreme in ships involved? Yes. Extreme in the losses for one side? Yes. Extreme result ? No. Why? Because I still think my force was so superior that it just had to end in a whipe out. With luck my opponent might have sunk some more CVE, with bad luck he might have aimed at my fleet carriers and achieve less hits than on the CVE because the CV are twice as fast. With luck (or a different design [;)]) the hundreds of TBF/TBM would have scored a higher percentage of torp hits and not only 2 or 3% during clear sky on already wrecked targets (all torp carrying bombers had 70 torp skill).

Luck may be a much bigger factor in small battles than in big ones because if 3 vs 3 carriers engage, with luck one side may lose all 3 while the other one only has got one damage. But if you field a force like I did and launch a strike of far over 1000 aircraft to start with, heck, luck isn´t really needed then.

I would always preferre numbers over luck.



castor troy -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 7:48:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123
I've been mulling over the results of the massive CV Air battles in the PzB/Andy AAR and the Castor Troy AAR. In the first the Japanese side obliterated the Allied CV forces in Fall of 1943. In the second the Allied side obliterated the Japanese CV forces in the Spring of 1944. Both battles bother me, but I'm having difficulty pointing my finger on why.
(...)
So what other options do you think there are in a campaign game to avoid total destruction in a day?


Limit (as yet only by HR) to limit max number of (operational/that take part in action) planes available in a single hex.
Airfields: 25 per level, CVTF max 300-350.

Being z veteran of old days WITP I remember major mothers of all battles to be really bloody baths. We all hated and loved the routine. But... sometimes even 1000 planes were shot down by CAP, which means that losses in capital ships were not so significant.

AE changed the air model so that it's more a rule than an exception that with significant raid more planes go through CAP & hit the targets which, with determined players looking for "all or nothing", usually mean heavy ship losses.

My logic is simple.
Less aircrafts = smaller raids = less hits = more clashes = longer game = more fun for both players



had similar hr in WITP but IMO not needed in AE anymore as strikes leak through any Cap now. A 1000 Hellcat Cap can whipe out hundreds of aircraft if you´re lucky but can also miss 50% of the attackers which then put holes below the water line in your ships. If you limit your CV TF per hex to 350 aircraft you end up with roughly 150 fighters at best and a Cap of let´s say 100 is nothing but a wet fart IMO.



viberpol -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 10:11:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
With luck (or a different design [;)]) the hundreds of TBF/TBM would have scored a higher percentage of torp hits and not only 2 or 3% during clear sky on already wrecked targets (all torp carrying bombers had 70 torp skill).

Luck may be a much bigger factor in small battles than in big ones because if 3 vs 3 carriers engage, with luck one side may lose all 3 while the other one only has got one damage. But if you field a force like I did and launch a strike of far over 1000 aircraft to start with, heck, luck isn´t really needed then.

I would always preferre numbers over luck.



quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

AE changed the air model so that it's more a rule than an exception that with significant raid more planes go through CAP & hit the targets which, with determined players looking for "all or nothing", usually mean heavy ship losses.

My logic is simple.
Less aircrafts = smaller raids = less hits = more clashes = longer game = more fun for both players


had similar hr in WITP but IMO not needed in AE anymore as strikes leak through any Cap now. A 1000 Hellcat Cap can whipe out hundreds of aircraft if you´re lucky but can also miss 50% of the attackers which then put holes below the water line in your ships. If you limit your CV TF per hex to 350 aircraft you end up with roughly 150 fighters at best and a Cap of let´s say 100 is nothing but a wet fart IMO.


This is exactly why IMHO the limits should be good.
It would also decrease the numbers in coming raids.

In AE any raid should/will go trough CAP no matter what.
But less bombers equals less losses in capital ships.

I just dread such a 1000-planes raids... it's a hammer, simply a hammer. [:D]
It brings the game down to a point where you just need to wait for enough fleet carriers available and then go with them across the board.
The AE engine still doesn't handle such a giant encounters well.

Where's the fun of play? The playability?

And there's no beauty and luck involved in 1000-planes raids. Which is why I don't like it. [;)]



castor troy -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 10:54:30 AM)

where´s the fun having the carriers sunk everytime you send them out in bits and pieces of three or four? [:D]



EUBanana -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 1:01:16 PM)

I think with CVs you don't really have much of a choice.

"Don't send your men in in penny packets" applies, if you're going to use them, you must concentrate or risk being destroyed in detail.




herwin -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 1:47:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think with CVs you don't really have much of a choice.

"Don't send your men in in penny packets" applies, if you're going to use them, you must concentrate or risk being destroyed in detail.




I assume people understand what is meant by a surge in sorties, where for a short period of time an air unit generates up to 3x the number of sorties a day that it can generate on a sustained basis. One of the major advantages of a carrier over an airfield is that it can move into range, generate a surge, and then move out of range. During that period, a carrier is three times as effective as an airfield with the same number of aircraft.



EUBanana -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/8/2011 2:00:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
I assume people understand what is meant by a surge in sorties, where for a short period of time an air unit generates up to 3x the number of sorties a day that it can generate on a sustained basis. One of the major advantages of a carrier over an airfield is that it can move into range, generate a surge, and then move out of range. During that period, a carrier is three times as effective as an airfield with the same number of aircraft.


Well, in the game, I don't believe any of this is represented.



topeverest -> RE: Thoughts on Giant Battles in the Game (3/11/2011 3:13:16 PM)

it is lousy to be on the losing side of one of these, but there is considerable historical precedence. IMHO, I don't see the major flaw. It seems WAD and working appropriately as any game engine could. I think Caster summaraized it pretty well. Good strategy and tactics will prevail in most cases. That is true in history too.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.03125