Several issues arising out of game. (Full Version)

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



Message

cantona2 -> Several issues arising out of game. (5/12/2011 8:58:45 AM)

As you are aware Ramon (Fletcher) and I have recently given up our game, played under the last official patch. Several issues have arisen that we feel need addressing or discussed.

1) Chinese OOB, Chinese AT values and relative weakness of Chinese Corps. China seems very, very weak in the field. Several encounters, after having made the best possible leadership changes and ensuring a decent force ratio, resulted in massive losses for China in the region of 80-85% vs 1 or 2% Japanese. If this happened once or twice then fair enough. I happened wih increasing frequency, sometimes even with fully supplied units in good defensive terrain.

Chinese AT values are laughable. One Cavalry Corps in wooded terrain could not dislodge a Japanese armoured regiment. I think I mentioned in my AAR that not even the vaunted early war Panzer Regiments could have done this. I accept that anti-tank gun capacity in Chinese TO&E's has to be low but why are AT values for squads so low? A dedicated aerial campaign in China backed by a few divisions and a lot of armour can blitz its way to Chungking.

This is not sour grapes as if I am out maneouvered in the field then so be it and no moaning but China seems to be the house of cards Hitler though Russia was going to be.

2) Coordination issues on both sides. Ramon explains it very well in his AAR section on the first counter attacks on the USMC toehold on Lunga. I had a very similar problem in my tentative counter in the Arakan. All supporting fields (most level 5 one or two 8+) had at least one RAAF Group HQ on them as well as X2 supplies, as well as a theatre air HQ at Dacca. First attack on Akyab, 150+ fighters (following established forum doctrine for escorts) did not show, neither did the sweeps (weather ok and so on as bombers took off from same bases), cue 40+ bombers shot down. End of bomber support for attack.

3) Dud rate is baffling. One merchant ship got hit by 9 duds in one sole attack, 14 in total in a chain of attacks from Milne Bay to Merauke via PM and HI. I get the hisorical dud question and love its in the game but it seemed in this game that the Dutch, British and S-Boat subs were also having an excessively high dud rate. Especially against military targets, I think 5 of his carriers were hit by duds (only the Kaga had an explosion). This issue also occured in my game vs Local Yokel in WITP vanilla days. We commented that MSW's and PG's were torpedo magnets but all other military targets swallowed dud after dud.

4) The invulnerabiliy of 4e's unescorted during daylight raids also raised some concerns. OK for the AFB (me) but very frustrating for the JFB (him). He'd lose more fighters than I bombers, thats including flak and ops losses. Sometimes 12 bombers vs 50 fighters and still he'd lose maybe two or three planes, the eggs dropped on the target and maybe one op loss on the way back.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads (after FOW, confirmed by me when I run the turn). I would say that after the bombardment I was still at 90-92% fighting strength. This also after raids by KB and a lot of LBA (fort level never went beyond 3 do not know what level Ramon had when I landed). These same Marines then fought back two IJA attacks by three, according to Ramon elite and 100% prepped, divisons. By this point I had 20 supply on Lunga.

We both love the game but felt very strongly about these issues to sop playing. I am already used to playing without carriers so the Battle of the Solomons had no impact on our decision, as a matter of fact the game continued for a few weeks afer he defeat at sea. Ramon has stated that had I pounded Rangoon from Northern Oz, due to the ease the 4e's have in getting to the target, I would have cut off all supply to the Solomons.

Anyhow thanks for the time in reading this and do not take it as a 'I hate this game and I am leaving rant', rather as an 'we both love the game and want as much as possible to see it improved' post.

Cantona2



Roger Neilson II -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/12/2011 9:40:42 AM)

Whilst not having the same detailed documentation you have provided I am increasingly concerned about some of the aspects you are raising.

1. It seems to me impossible to meet any japanese force with Chinese and stand any chance of success - so China is about putting in suicide roadblocks and trying to slow down a crazy speed of advance which can show japanese armoured units speeding across the map in terrain that would be very hostile and with, it would seem, unlimited ability to drop by Chinese gas stations and fill up at will.
2. Dud torpedoes are a real bane - mid 1943 and still the rule rather than the exception.
3. I agree 4E bombers are wrong - but hey they are the only thing I think the Allies have to counter the jap onslaught that is till going on in 1943, The balance is the flyboys seem to need a week off after every mission to celebrate their success and get the ground crews to paint the scores on the planes.
4. I'm putting it down to the BETA - which may be wrong, but in my patched game I regularly have bomers decide to hit targets I have never given them and I have found at least on spot where they just will not ever target.
5. Additionally the ability to use the paradrop, auto fuelled tank columns and an infinite amount of rolling stock that is being demonstrated in a current AAR is to me making this seem more like an eastern Front game.


Again please read this in the spirit of Cantona's posting.

Roger



ADB123 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/12/2011 11:08:40 AM)

I've currently got 1 Allied PBEM and 2 Japanese PBEMs going, and I have had a couple more of each going at one time or another. Here are my observations.

1 - China - As the Allied player I pulled back my weak Chinese units and rebuilt them. I kept my strong Chinese units on the move and in good defensive terrain. In late 1942 we've got a stalemate that makes me quite happy. As the Japanese player, when my opponents have moved the Chinese forward early in the war I've cut them off, destroyed them piecemeal, and crushed China. When I've gone against the good Chinese units with mediocre Japanese units my Japanese troops have been crushed. As the Japanese player I've also had the odd Japanese armoured unit wiped out be a large, good Chinese column, so I have become more careful about how I use armour. So I don't see a problem with the Chinese OOB, but I can see where an Allied player can get into devastating trouble by trying to be aggressive in China.

2 - I don't have a lot of coordination problems with my air attacks because I expect that the Weather and the Random Chance Generator will make massive air strikes difficult to do. Essentially I never expect a massive monster air strike to overwhelm my opponent and "win the game" in on blast. Instead I plan my air attacks against specific targets with limited numbers of planes and with the best planes for the job. So I don't try to fly hundreds of planes against a single target in a given day. When I tried that as either side I took horrible losses. Now I use air power in support of my land and naval operations instead of the reverse and I get the type of support that I want and need. And I do often get fine coordination of the sort that I want.

3 - I find that sub skipper quality is important for sub success, so I put in good skippers and sink a fair number of ships as the Allies. Yes, there are duds, but there seem to be almost as many duds as the Japanese. Such is luck.

4 - There are limited numbers of 4Es and as Allied player I find that I have to be careful of their overuse or I run out of effective numbers quickly. As the Japanese player I find that I can attrite them quickly if my opponent keeps on sending them in against CAP. They aren't invulnerable, and they aren't game changers unless the Japanese player lets them be.

5 - The Random Chance Generator has a huge effect on Naval Bombardments. I've bombarded the same Chinese ports dozens of times in a row with the same Japanese ships in the same TF and I always get very different results with each bombardment, even though I've kept constant all of the factors that are under my control. So yes, sometimes a big TF will do little, and a little TF will do much. But send the same TF against the same target over and over again and you will see two things:

a - the results will vary each time
b - you will eventually wipe out the target, given enough bombardments




JWE -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/12/2011 3:15:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2
As you are aware Ramon (Fletcher) and I have recently given up our game, played under the last official patch. Several issues have arisen that we feel need addressing or discussed.
Cantona2


Jonathan, Ramon,

Very well expressed. Agree there are some areas that need attention.

Some of these are being addressed in BabesLite. We have been a bit remiss in looking at China because it's such a monster, but think it's quite feasible to tweak certain data areas, to alleviate your concerns, without causing the system to fall off the cliff. We have a data fix for Naval Bombardment that we are putting into BigBabes. Should be simple to port it over to BabesLite.

That would, at least, put a CG scenario in place that plays like 001 or 006, either PBEM or AI, so players can give this stuff a test drive. If they do indeed address some of the concerns, perhaps they could be incorporated into a data patch for the 'official' scenarios at some future point in time (not too likely, but always possible).

We are looking primarily at data tweaks to resolve these things for a number of reasons. Everything is inter-related in numerous (often unknown) ways. So fixing one thing in code, tends to impact four others in unexpected ways. Another reason is that a great deal of the data are still vestigal, much going back to UV, and not expressed in that smooth a function, nor necessarily adapted to the requirements of the AE operating code algorithm. When operated on by the code algorithms, arbitrary and capricious data will always give arbitrary and capricious results. "Fixing" the code just gives arbitrary and capricious results in another aspect (garbage-in, garbage-out). A mathematical operation can never be "adjusted" adequately until the inputs are in a known functional form. That's the main reason we are so violently opposed to using code to address singular issues.

But think we can do some good in your 1), 3), 5) areas of concern. Or at least clean them up such that code tweaks will make some sense.

Ciao. John

ps, Have an option for you and Ramon that might help a bit if you wish to continue an ongoing game. If interested, please send pm.

[ed] nothing here should be taken to reflect on the air model. We know little of it and cannot comment. We have an implicit trust in the air team and know they think in much the same fashion we do.



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/12/2011 8:32:37 PM)

Thanks all for your posts..
I subscribe all complaints from Jonathan post. It was a pity. It was a amazing game with a great AFB player.

ABD123, I´m very frustrating after several bombing action against USMC at Lunga (not one or two, I am talking about 4 or more, with two massive aerial attacks from KB airplanes). With one BB, USNavy got +300 casualties of IJA men.. .me with Yamato and 4 BBs got 2 squads disableds.. it´s strange, very strange after my DL were at maximum after day after day flying recon ops with my recon IJAAF planes. Jonathan with one Battleship got more than me with 5, and I had forty level 4 at Lunga Point... too easy for him, too hard for Japanese player... About 4E´s, I am absolutely not agree with your. HE could fly over Rabaul, Rangoon or any airfield with absolute impunity... My fighters (Ki-44IIa, Ki-45 KAI, A6M2, A6M3) were unable to stop any strike under sunny sky with heavy superiority numbers (30-40 fighters against 10-15 bombers). NO casualties for him, several fighters with high skill pilots downed... strange, very strange!.

Best wishes
Ramón



ADB123 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/12/2011 10:40:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

Thanks all for your posts..
I subscribe all complaints from Jonathan post. It was a pity. It was a amazing game with a great AFB player.

ABD123, I´m very frustrating after several bombing action against USMC at Lunga (not one or two, I am talking about 4 or more, with two massive aerial attacks from KB airplanes). With one BB, USNavy got +300 casualties of IJA men.. .me with Yamato and 4 BBs got 2 squads disableds.. it´s strange, very strange after my DL were at maximum after day after day flying recon ops with my recon IJAAF planes. Jonathan with one Battleship got more than me with 5, and I had forty level 4 at Lunga Point... too easy for him, too hard for Japanese player... About 4E´s, I am absolutely not agree with your. HE could fly over Rabaul, Rangoon or any airfield with absolute impunity... My fighters (Ki-44IIa, Ki-45 KAI, A6M2, A6M3) were unable to stop any strike under sunny sky with heavy superiority numbers (30-40 fighters against 10-15 bombers). NO casualties for him, several fighters with high skill pilots downed... strange, very strange!.

Best wishes
Ramón


Ramon - Are you setting the floatplanes on your bombardment ships to "Night/Recon" and setting Lunga as the target?

My observations are that naval bombardments are very subject to random numbers. The exact same TF will hit Wuchow one night, blast all facilities for 20 damage point each, and not hit any troops. The next night the same TF will hit again, not touch any facilities, and disable 20 troops. The following night the same TF will cause 500 fires and nuke the entire base into oblivion. I have not yet been able to figure out if there is anything in my control to get less random results.

BTW - are you being careful that your BBs and CAs are reloading fully on each attack? My Allied opponent didn't check that early on in our match and his bombardment TFs weren't doing any damage at all until I asked him about it.

As far as 4Es go - I just keep Zeros up on CAP and they keep on damaging and destroying 4Es. But then, I don't try to defend bases that are close to the 4E bases. Once the 4Es are at extended range they are very vulnerable.

And if my opponent brings a hundred 4Es to bomb nearby bases I just pull back and attack where his 4Es aren't. I don't attack my opponent's strong points, so when an opponent over-defends one area, I just go somewhere else.

Also, it's very hard to bomb multiple bases back into the Stone Age, as I've been experiencing in my Allied match. 4Es are only one weapon among many - I don't expect to win the game with them alone.




asdicus -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 12:50:40 AM)

I am now on my third ae pbm game as the allies - bought the game when it was first released and so have seen a lot of changes and improvements made by the various patches and mods.

My current pbm game is babes mod with a few extra database changes - very pleased with this mod and it makes for a great pbm game. To be honest I have to disagree with most of the issues you have raised.

1. China - initially chinese forces are weak and badly positioned - you need to know when to fight and when to fall back to better defensive ground. On clear terrain the japs will and should always win. In good defensive terrain the japs can be stopped. Chinese offensive power is low and so it should be - their armies frankly were very poor they could not even feed their troops let alone provide them with enough equipment to attack successfully. Supply wise if the allies hold burma then supplies seem to flow easily from india to burma and then burma to china. My latest game is in april 42 and chungking has 100k supplies changsha 50k all drawn it seems from burma. michaelm is looking at this as it seems a bit odd to me how much supply is in china (using latest beta patch). I do like the houserule of no strategic bombing in china to stop bombing of chinese industry.

2. Air coordination - basically stuff never goes to plan in war and ae does a good job of recreating this. Both sides suffer from these issues so really I can't see why it is a problem. I would hate to see ae just follow players orders exactly as issued every turn - war is not like that - if it can go wrong it will.

3. Sub torpedo dud rates - very annoying of course for the allies but then usa torpedoes really were hopeless for the first 2 years of the war. Historical fact. As the allies you have to put up with it. I use my usa fleet subs as normal - they do still sink ships and I just celebrate when the torp goes off on occasion rather than count all the duds.

4. 4e bombers were very hard to shoot down. The luftwaffe had a lot of trouble destroying them with far better armed fighters than anything the japs had. My jap opponent uses massed flak to defend his vital bases and it works to attrite the 4e bombers. Also the allies get very few 4e planes in babes mod and they go unseviceable very easily. I do have a houserule no 4e in china as histortically thee chinese could never have supplied 4e bombers flying strategic missions from chinese bases.

5.Naval bombardments - luck of the dice how effective they can be. The nuke bombardments in earlier patches were far too effective - things are much better now.

I think the game is very good as it is now and the developers should be wary of making any big changes. Many of your problems could be at least mitigated with different tactics and an acceptance that things don't always go to plan. Historical fact supports some of the issues you have mentioned. I think it is a shame you have given up your pbm game for the reasons you mentioned.



Nemo121 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 9:32:45 AM)

Just to comment on some of the points:

1. China. There are Allied players who have managed to turn the tables in China in 1942, even when facing the IJA tank forces from Manchukuo. I don't think China is a house of cards at all. With manoeuvre it is possible for the Allies to have the Japanese move into poor positions and then go over onto the offensive. Yes, tanks are highly dangerous but the CHinese have AT units and when combined with good defensive terrain these can reduce losses to IJA tank units hugely.

2. Co-ordination. Smaller raids appear much easier to co-ordinate than large raids. I usually find I can co-ordinate small raids but large raids don't co-ordinate perfectly. I have adapted by phasing my aer superiority/bombing missions over several days rather than a single phase. It works out pretty well.

3. Duds.... Hmm, I haven't seen that in my Allied games or my games as the Japanese. In my games British and Dutch subs performed sterling work. Is there any possibility that something got corrupted in the database of your game? That's a serious question.

4. The problem with 4-engined bombers ( in spite of what some people may choose to shout about ) is not that they are too durable etc ( in real life they were hugely tough ) but that their ability to defend themselves against fighters is too high because the gun accuracy ratings which were used were the same accuracy that those guns would have if mounted in the wings of fighter.

So, basically the hand-held single 0.5cal HMG firing out of the waist of a B-17 has the same base chance to hit a fighter coming in on a slashing ( diagonal, diving attack.... a type of attack which is incredibly difficult for a gunner to compensate for due to the rapid change in multiple planes ( distance, vertical and horizontal separation ) ) attack as that fighter pilot has of hitting that bomber with his wing-wounted MGs. When you then take into account the huge number of bombers in a typical bomber formation and the defensive box bonus they appear to receive and it is very common for attacking fighters to be hit and damaged before even getting a shot off.

This then propagates such that, over time, you have fewer and fewer fighters making firing passes at the bombers, shooting down few of them and generally losing their combat effectiveness a lot more quickly than the bomber box is breaking up. As with all such Lanchester situations situations like that got geometric very quickly.

The simplest fix is to mod bomber accuracy for defensive armament. I adopted three different accuracies:
1. remote-controlled or fully hydraulic turrets : NO change in base accuracy.
2. Turreted guns but without ful hydraulic power/fancy sighting mechanisms ( think the rear seat gunner in the B6N etc ): base accuracy reduced by 50%
3. Hand-held guns not in turrets ( the side guns in the B-17 etc ): base accuracy reduced by 75%

Bombers still remain very tough and take a lot of punishment but more fighters survive the approach run to actually reach firing positions which results in, to my mind, more believable combat outcomes vis a vis history.

By modding the bomber defensive turret accuracy you can avoid code changes or changes which impact on fighters armed with the same weapons systems. It thus solves the primary issue with changes - their unanticipated consequences elsewhere within the engine when the item is referenced by some obscure piece of code. Obviously though one of the goals of playing the mod ( ongoing ) is to decide how those base accuracies need to be further modified.


5. Naval bombardment: Yes, hugely variable. It is very important to have spotter floatplanes working for night-time bombardments. I've had the same TF composition destroy 20 planes, many squads and leave dozens of craters in an enemy base one night and a week later injure two men and leave a single crater. I always thought that was just a good representation of the randomness of war to be honest. One thing I will say though is that if you allow escorts to bombard and they can safely do so you'll get a huge boost in number of kills and damage done. I preferentially use CLs and DDs in bombardment TFs for that reason and find my results much better than when using CAs and BBs. This could do with fixing obviously.


So, overall, I think the 4-engined and the naval bombardment issues could do with looking at. I haven't seen the issues with Allied subs and wonder if it was just really bad luck and I strongly disagree China needs changing. Players have been able to rout the Japanese in China by mid-42. They hardly need more help to do so.



Durbik -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 10:21:54 AM)

quote:

4. The problem with 4-engined bombers ( in spite of what some people may choose to shout about ) is not that they are too durable etc ( in real life they were hugely tough ) but that their ability to defend themselves against fighters is too high because the gun accuracy ratings which were used were the same accuracy that those guns would have if mounted in the wings of fighter.

So, basically the hand-held single 0.5cal HMG firing out of the waist of a B-17 has the same base chance to hit a fighter coming in on a slashing ( diagonal, diving attack.... a type of attack which is incredibly difficult for a gunner to compensate for due to the rapid change in multiple planes ( distance, vertical and horizontal separation ) ) attack as that fighter pilot has of hitting that bomber with his wing-wounted MGs. When you then take into account the huge number of bombers in a typical bomber formation and the defensive box bonus they appear to receive and it is very common for attacking fighters to be hit and damaged before even getting a shot off.


Amen to that



cantona2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 11:10:50 AM)

quote:

. Duds.... Hmm, I haven't seen that in my Allied games or my games as the Japanese. In my games British and Dutch subs performed sterling work. Is there any possibility that something got corrupted in the database of your game? That's a serious question.

4. The problem with 4-engined bombers ( in spite of what some people may choose to shout about ) is not that they are too durable etc ( in real life they were hugely tough ) but that their ability to defend themselves against fighters is too high because the gun accuracy ratings which were used were the same accuracy that those guns would have if mounted in the wings of fighter.

So, basically the hand-held single 0.5cal HMG firing out of the waist of a B-17 has the same base chance to hit a fighter coming in on a slashing ( diagonal, diving attack.... a type of attack which is incredibly difficult for a gunner to compensate for due to the rapid change in multiple planes ( distance, vertical and horizontal separation ) ) attack as that fighter pilot has of hitting that bomber with his wing-wounted MGs. When you then take into account the huge number of bombers in a typical bomber formation and the defensive box bonus they appear to receive and it is very common for attacking fighters to be hit and damaged before even getting a shot off.

This then propagates such that, over time, you have fewer and fewer fighters making firing passes at the bombers, shooting down few of them and generally losing their combat effectiveness a lot more quickly than the bomber box is breaking up. As with all such Lanchester situations situations like that got geometric very quickly.

The simplest fix is to mod bomber accuracy for defensive armament. I adopted three different accuracies:
1. remote-controlled or fully hydraulic turrets : NO change in base accuracy.
2. Turreted guns but without ful hydraulic power/fancy sighting mechanisms ( think the rear seat gunner in the B6N etc ): base accuracy reduced by 50%
3. Hand-held guns not in turrets ( the side guns in the B-17 etc ): base accuracy reduced by 75%

Bombers still remain very tough and take a lot of punishment but more fighters survive the approach run to actually reach firing positions which results in, to my mind, more believable combat outcomes vis a vis history.

By modding the bomber defensive turret accuracy you can avoid code changes or changes which impact on fighters armed with the same weapons systems. It thus solves the primary issue with changes - their unanticipated consequences elsewhere within the engine when the item is referenced by some obscure piece of code. Obviously though one of the goals of playing the mod ( ongoing ) is to decide how those base accuracies need to be further modified.


Nemo,

Your point about the duds maybe valid as we upgraded the game to the latest official patch (i) and i affected the subs already deployed by halving the number of tubes and causing damage to deck gun and AA armaments. These were rectified when the sub called into port to upgrade. Newly arrived subs in theatre came with their correct number of tubes. It may well be that the upgrade to this patch my have corrupted the database.

As to the 4E's good pionts indeed.

As to China, AT guns with strong infantry support blown away by Japanese tanks. They stood more of a chance in defensible terrain, albeitly a small one.

I reiterate what I said in post 1, this is not a gripe because Ramon is a better player than me, rather genuine issues we both raised and affected us both.



Nemo121 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 3:53:29 PM)

Cantona2,

Don't get me wrong, I am certain you are both raising this because you believe it is a gameplay issue. I'm just pointing out that a few players have managed to not only survive as China but use the Chinese army offensively to attack and rout those tank regiments etc. Since they were able to do that I am just querying whether we really need a change which would upset the game balance and introduce unrealistic levels of tank resistance to Chinese troops.


Basically it boils down to this.... If the Chinese can defeat the Japanese in battle and actually recapture large portions of China in 1942 before they get any army upgrades do we really need to adjust the balance so they are even stronger?



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 5:18:10 PM)

ABD123, Nemo121,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Just to comment on some of the points:

1. China. There are Allied players who have managed to turn the tables in China in 1942, even when facing the IJA tank forces from Manchukuo. I don't think China is a house of cards at all. With manoeuvre it is possible for the Allies to have the Japanese move into poor positions and then go over onto the offensive. Yes, tanks are highly dangerous but the CHinese have AT units and when combined with good defensive terrain these can reduce losses to IJA tank units hugely.


Chinese AT units ? are talking seriously ? I have faced with all chinese units in my march from Sian to Chungking, and anyone of them could to stop my tank advanced guard... and I have not seen any of those AT units !(?)Five tank regiments could enough to break chinese defensive positions (at urban hex or open ground or wooden hex)with several chinese corps (?). I am confindent about Jonathan´s abilities, and I think he is a very skilled AFB. The problem should be other, IMHO.


quote:

2. Co-ordination. Smaller raids appear much easier to co-ordinate than large raids. I usually find I can co-ordinate small raids but large raids don't co-ordinate perfectly. I have adapted by phasing my aer superiority/bombing missions over several days rather than a single phase. It works out pretty well.

Well, that´s nice but we are talking about escort fighters that lost contact ALL times with the striking groups. All japanese bombers launch "suicide" strikes over huge CAPs... sound strange when this is the outcome many consecutive days....attacks launched from well supplied airbases, under HQ with best leaders (in one of them I.Yamamoto, highly air skill), with the same number of daitais that air level at airbase... fighters at same altitude than bombers ... but all times, the fighters lost contact with bomber groups in their strikes against enemy carriers... is not strange ? (one time, probably, not.. but after 6-7 i got shocked).


quote:

3. Duds.... Hmm, I haven't seen that in my Allied games or my games as the Japanese. In my games British and Dutch subs performed sterling work. Is there any possibility that something got corrupted in the database of your game? That's a serious question.

Could be, our will is acknowledge for AE Team about these issues.

quote:

4. The problem with 4-engined bombers ( in spite of what some people may choose to shout about ) is not that they are too durable etc ( in real life they were hugely tough ) but that their ability to defend themselves against fighters is too high because the gun accuracy ratings which were used were the same accuracy that those guns would have if mounted in the wings of fighter.
So, basically the hand-held single 0.5cal HMG firing out of the waist of a B-17 has the same base chance to hit a fighter coming in on a slashing ( diagonal, diving attack.... a type of attack which is incredibly difficult for a gunner to compensate for due to the rapid change in multiple planes ( distance, vertical and horizontal separation ) ) attack as that fighter pilot has of hitting that bomber with his wing-wounted MGs. When you then take into account the huge number of bombers in a typical bomber formation and the defensive box bonus they appear to receive and it is very common for attacking fighters to be hit and damaged before even getting a shot off.

This then propagates such that, over time, you have fewer and fewer fighters making firing passes at the bombers, shooting down few of them and generally losing their combat effectiveness a lot more quickly than the bomber box is breaking up. As with all such Lanchester situations situations like that got geometric very quickly.

The simplest fix is to mod bomber accuracy for defensive armament. I adopted three different accuracies:
1. remote-controlled or fully hydraulic turrets : NO change in base accuracy.
2. Turreted guns but without ful hydraulic power/fancy sighting mechanisms ( think the rear seat gunner in the B6N etc ): base accuracy reduced by 50%
3. Hand-held guns not in turrets ( the side guns in the B-17 etc ): base accuracy reduced by 75%

Bombers still remain very tough and take a lot of punishment but more fighters survive the approach run to actually reach firing positions which results in, to my mind, more believable combat outcomes vis a vis history.

By modding the bomber defensive turret accuracy you can avoid code changes or changes which impact on fighters armed with the same weapons systems. It thus solves the primary issue with changes - their unanticipated consequences elsewhere within the engine when the item is referenced by some obscure piece of code. Obviously though one of the goals of playing the mod ( ongoing ) is to decide how those base accuracies need to be further modified.


5. Naval bombardment: Yes, hugely variable. It is very important to have spotter floatplanes working for night-time bombardments. I've had the same TF composition destroy 20 planes, many squads and leave dozens of craters in an enemy base one night and a week later injure two men and leave a single crater. I always thought that was just a good representation of the randomness of war to be honest. One thing I will say though is that if you allow escorts to bombard and they can safely do so you'll get a huge boost in number of kills and damage done. I preferentially use CLs and DDs in bombardment TFs for that reason and find my results much better than when using CAs and BBs. This could do with fixing obviously.


So, overall, I think the 4-engined and the naval bombardment issues could do with looking at. I haven't seen the issues with Allied subs and wonder if it was just really bad luck and I strongly disagree China needs changing. Players have been able to rout the Japanese in China by mid-42. They hardly need more help to do so.


About 4E: We are talking about 10-15 B-17/B-24 against 30-50 IJAAF/IJNAF high skilled fighters... never I got NOT to shotdown ONE B-17 over heavily defended targets under a sunny daylight sky with heavy numbers superiority.

Naval bombardment: My bombardments strikes were at sunny daylight with many floatplanes working at recon over target. My outcomes with BB YAMATO and another 4 battleships were a shame... 2 USMC squads disabled.... I had no problems with reload my main batteries at Truk (with level 7 at port and more than 500 naval support squads there... and massive supplies stocks).

Yes, I know, that some players can rout the Japanese at China in mid-42, myself between them... but this is not the issue.. If you are playing with japanese and don´t take care of China threatre then it´s possible to be in problems easily, but it will be seriously different with a decent JFB player.

Best wishes
Ramón


PS: Excuse my english, it´s poor, it´s not my native laguage. I request to Cantona2 to open this threat due he is english native.



SuluSea -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 6:10:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cantona2,

Don't get me wrong, I am certain you are both raising this because you believe it is a gameplay issue. I'm just pointing out that a few players have managed to not only survive as China but use the Chinese army offensively to attack and rout those tank regiments etc. Since they were able to do that I am just querying whether we really need a change which would upset the game balance and introduce unrealistic levels of tank resistance to Chinese troops.


Basically it boils down to this.... If the Chinese can defeat the Japanese in battle and actually recapture large portions of China in 1942 before they get any army upgrades do we really need to adjust the balance so they are even stronger?


I've seen this as well, I believe the developers have China just about right and if I were forced to choose I'd give a slight edge to China being better than I would have imagined historically.



Xargun -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 7:18:39 PM)

My only comment here is at what distance did you have your IJN BBs bombard ? In my experience with IJN Bombardment TFs, the closer I go the better my results usually are.

Xargun



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 8:08:39 PM)

Xargun,

distance for bombardment: 3 milles (letting escorts bombardment too)

I have probe their shore defenses in several days landing one tank coy with the support of light ships (xPBs) and I have no hits from his guns.

I hope this help
Best wishes
Ramón



witpqs -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 8:31:23 PM)

Regarding torpedo duds: Given that the USN Mk14 has a dud rate of 80%, I suspect he is seeing some statistical runs. Flip a coin a few thousand times and you will see some runs of 10 heads in a row. The coin is 50% heads but the dud rate is 80%, so you will see some pretty annoyingly long runs of "dud, dud, dud..."

4EBs: With respect to the defensive guns, just remember that some planes used advanced remote control mechanisms (no recoil on the gunner to spoil aim) which were far more accurate than hand-held guns. The B-29 comes to mind, I know there were others.

Bombardments: I have seen a lot of variability and it seems right to me. I have gotten considerably worse results from CLs and DDs than from BBs and CAs. In a thread about bombardment where a new player was complaining that they never work for him but always work for his opponent I wrote a list of all the factors I could think of that affect bombardment. If I can find it I will link to it.



witpqs -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 8:36:30 PM)

OK, rather than link here is a cut & paste. Note that the original poster had some successful bombardments but was frustrated about not being able to repeat that on demand.

quote:


Yes I do see variability. You showed us a successful bombardment of Suva.

If your opponent gets a CD unit there that will greatly reduce your chances of success. I know you want to issue the order "ignore the anti-ship guns and fire only at the airfield" but that's not WITP-AE.

Here are the things (that I can think of right now) that affect naval bombardment:


  • TF commander skills.
  • Each ships' commander skills.
  • Each ships' crew skills.
  • Is a float plane group from the bombardment TF set to "Recon" mission (day or night does not matter)?
  • Weather.
  • Moonlight if at night.
  • Presence of minefields.
  • Range setting of bombardment TF.
  • Fortification level of enemy base and enemy LCUs.
  • Number, size, range, effect, etc. of the ships' guns.
  • Enemy defensive guns.
  • Skills of leader of enemy defensive guns.
  • Skills of LCU of enemy defensive guns.
  • Detection level of base in target hex.
  • Detection level of LCUs in target hex.
  • Ops points of bombarding TF (it might have had previous encounters during the turn).
  • Ammunition of bombarding TF.
  • Terrain of target hex.
  • Detection level of bombarding TF (might affect enemy defensive guns' fire).
  • Random variability applied in an unknown number of ways.

Perhaps others can add to the list.



cantona2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 11:21:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, rather than link here is a cut & paste. Note that the original poster had some successful bombardments but was frustrated about not being able to repeat that on demand.

quote:


Yes I do see variability. You showed us a successful bombardment of Suva.

If your opponent gets a CD unit there that will greatly reduce your chances of success. I know you want to issue the order "ignore the anti-ship guns and fire only at the airfield" but that's not WITP-AE.

Here are the things (that I can think of right now) that affect naval bombardment:


  • TF commander skills.
  • Each ships' commander skills.
  • Each ships' crew skills.
  • Is a float plane group from the bombardment TF set to "Recon" mission (day or night does not matter)?
  • Weather.
  • Moonlight if at night.
  • Presence of minefields.
  • Range setting of bombardment TF.
  • Fortification level of enemy base and enemy LCUs.
  • Number, size, range, effect, etc. of the ships' guns.
  • Enemy defensive guns.
  • Skills of leader of enemy defensive guns.
  • Skills of LCU of enemy defensive guns.
  • Detection level of base in target hex.
  • Detection level of LCUs in target hex.
  • Ops points of bombarding TF (it might have had previous encounters during the turn).
  • Ammunition of bombarding TF.
  • Terrain of target hex.
  • Detection level of bombarding TF (might affect enemy defensive guns' fire).
  • Random variability applied in an unknown number of ways.

Perhaps others can add to the list.



The original poster (ie me) had good bombardments. Ramon's gripe was the discrepancy between IJN and USN bombardment results. Obviously not all results are going to be the same (like in witp when all bombardments=NUKE)



cantona2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 11:28:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Regarding torpedo duds: Given that the USN Mk14 has a dud rate of 80%, I suspect he is seeing some statistical runs. Flip a coin a few thousand times and you will see some runs of 10 heads in a row. The coin is 50% heads but the dud rate is 80%, so you will see some pretty annoyingly long runs of "dud, dud, dud..."

4EBs: With respect to the defensive guns, just remember that some planes used advanced remote control mechanisms (no recoil on the gunner to spoil aim) which were far more accurate than hand-held guns. The B-29 comes to mind, I know there were others.

Bombardments: I have seen a lot of variability and it seems right to me. I have gotten considerably worse results from CLs and DDs than from BBs and CAs. In a thread about bombardment where a new player was complaining that they never work for him but always work for his opponent I wrote a list of all the factors I could think of that affect bombardment. If I can find it I will link to it.


and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud and dud...



witpqs -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/13/2011 11:49:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, rather than link here is a cut & paste. Note that the original poster had some successful bombardments but was frustrated about not being able to repeat that on demand.

quote:


Yes I do see variability. You showed us a successful bombardment of Suva.

If your opponent gets a CD unit there that will greatly reduce your chances of success. I know you want to issue the order "ignore the anti-ship guns and fire only at the airfield" but that's not WITP-AE.

Here are the things (that I can think of right now) that affect naval bombardment:


  • TF commander skills.
  • Each ships' commander skills.
  • Each ships' crew skills.
  • Is a float plane group from the bombardment TF set to "Recon" mission (day or night does not matter)?
  • Weather.
  • Moonlight if at night.
  • Presence of minefields.
  • Range setting of bombardment TF.
  • Fortification level of enemy base and enemy LCUs.
  • Number, size, range, effect, etc. of the ships' guns.
  • Enemy defensive guns.
  • Skills of leader of enemy defensive guns.
  • Skills of LCU of enemy defensive guns.
  • Detection level of base in target hex.
  • Detection level of LCUs in target hex.
  • Ops points of bombarding TF (it might have had previous encounters during the turn).
  • Ammunition of bombarding TF.
  • Terrain of target hex.
  • Detection level of bombarding TF (might affect enemy defensive guns' fire).
  • Random variability applied in an unknown number of ways.

Perhaps others can add to the list.



The original poster (ie me) had good bombardments. Ramon's gripe was the discrepancy between IJN and USN bombardment results. Obviously not all results are going to be the same (like in witp when all bombardments=NUKE)


Not you - the original poster in the thread I pulled this from. I think it was Seille (perhaps I spell it badly).



erstad -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 1:10:57 AM)

quote:

Chinese AT units ? are talking seriously ? I have faced with all chinese units in my march from Sian to Chungking, and anyone of them could to stop my tank advanced guard... and I have not seen any of those AT units


In Scen 1, Chinese start with two regiments of 37mm AT guns in Chungking.



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 10:43:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

quote:

Chinese AT units ? are talking seriously ? I have faced with all chinese units in my march from Sian to Chungking, and anyone of them could to stop my tank advanced guard... and I have not seen any of those AT units


In Scen 1, Chinese start with two regiments of 37mm AT guns in Chungking.



...and they were overwhelmeed by the advanced guard with Japanese Tank Regiments easily at Sian... I could not see more in my rush to Chungking...

Ramón



herwin -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 11:05:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

quote:

Chinese AT units ? are talking seriously ? I have faced with all chinese units in my march from Sian to Chungking, and anyone of them could to stop my tank advanced guard... and I have not seen any of those AT units


In Scen 1, Chinese start with two regiments of 37mm AT guns in Chungking.



...and they were overwhelmeed by the advanced guard with Japanese Tank Regiments easily at Sian... I could not see more in my rush to Chungking...

Ramón


I put them up in the hills above Sian to support the army there. It seems to be holding out. You have to take advantage of terrain--nothing else can be used to anchor a defence. Certainly not fortifications.



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 2:45:10 PM)

The biggest problem in China is the Chinese lack of supplies. In the few games that I have played as allies, I find the Jap players putting most of the Manchurian air units into China, and the Chinese cant handle the supply drain. China can hold and in fact gain ground if they are supplied. I think the answer to the "China Syndrome" is to tweek the Chinese supply level.

I have been complaining about the coordination for years. Doctrine (by both sides) established early on in the war effectively eliminated coordination issues. Japanese strikes formed over their base and flew as a cohesive unit to the target from the start of the war. Yes, at times planes could become separated, but not whole squadrons. US Navy doctrine at the start of the war was up to the carrier commander. At Coral Sea for example, 1 carrier formed the raids over the carriers and the others SOP was to meet up enroute. Of course this same doctrine was in use at Midway. But after Midway, it changed. By 1944 even TBFs on search missions had an escort of 1 or 2 fighters. The US Army was the exception. They regularly would have a meet point where their fighter escort would join the bombers. But even there, because of radio communication, it was rare that they failed to meet. Having planes from different fields arrive at different times does make sense. But for same field aircraft to scatter like it does, doesnt.

The only real issue I have with submarines is that they have an amazing kill ratio vs ASW groups. While not tracking it specifically, I would estimate I lose 1.5 to 2 escorts per sub.

4E, nothing new there. If you were to believe the kill ratios and the bombing accuracy of the 4E bombers in the game, the allies would have been stupid to build any other land based plane. They hit ships, even from 20,000 ft better than dive bombers, they kill more Zeros than P-40s do, and 4 squadrons can level any airfield in a single raid. And if you send them in at night, its way out of wack.

Naval bombardments I sent Michael some saves a few months back (I was seeing the same things as above) and he said he would look into.

Now lest you think I am "bashing the game" (which people seem to love to accuse me of), Im not. Im pointing out things that I feel are shortcomings in the game. Not saying the game is bad. Im saying parts of the game are bad, but parts that can be fixed. Things that I have been saying for years needed to be addressed. Glad others are finally speaking up as well. There are a lot of good things about the game. There are some game breaking problems that need house rules to correct, and if you need to make a house rule to correct a shortcoming in the game, then maybe the game really does need to be fixed.



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 3:17:58 PM)

CV2, thanks a lot for your post.

About House Rules, we had a huge HR for both (you can see them at the start of my own AAR) to avoid problems like you told. Manchurian forces could NOT march to China to support IJA operations in this theatre. Same for aircrafts. I seized China with the only support of 4 extra divisions (48th, and Guards from the West and 16th and 2nd from the south) and all of them were not directly engaged in the final rush to capture Chungking.

I think that cantona2 is a very good player and I am sure players known him like a very accurate AFB. IF the problem was from a uncautious guy playing unconscienciously at this theatre then this could be his problem.... but in our game that´s not could be.

Thanks a lot to share your point of view
Best wishes
Ramón




treespider -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 3:46:58 PM)

I find it simply ridiculous (edit: apologies for the hyperbole) that people complain about China not being "historically" accurate...especially when they let the Japanese player bring the kitchen sink and the plumbing in from Manchuria....of course the Chinese will get rolled in that case.



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 3:54:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I find it simply ridiculous (edit: apologies for the hyperbole) that people complain about China not being "historically" accurate...especially when they let the Japanese player bring the kitchen sink and the plumbing in from Manchuria....of course the Chinese will get rolled in that case.


It was not the problem in our game, not Manchurian forces were sent to reinforce IJA at China...
two divisions from XXV Army (48th and Guards) and another two from south (2nd and 16th) but ANY of them were engaged in the main combat to seize Sian or Chungking. All IJA forces from IJA China Expeditionary Army.

I think China is weaker than RL, very weaker...IMHO.

Ramón



Nemo121 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 4:39:18 PM)

Weird, I find CHina too strong. In-game the Chinese can mount offensives they'd never have been able to mount in real life - assuming you can keep them supplied.

I think the fact that some get steam-rollered and some steamroller the Japanese points to the possibility that the differential is player play rather than any inherent error in modelling of the China theatre.



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/14/2011 5:39:26 PM)

Well truth be told, I think the "best" house rule (from my personal viewpoint, I dont expect everyone to agree) is to allow the 5 Chinese divisions to enter Burma, require Japan to maintain a minimum garrison (like Manchuria) and leave it. Neither side does anything (except HK of course). In my opinion, the game engine doesnt handle this theater very well.

But like I said, just my opinion.



Numdydar -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/15/2011 9:31:09 PM)

Am I missing something here (entirely possible I know lol)?

How on earth can Japan 'empty' Manchuria to defeat China? Getting 50pp/turn with a division costing 1700-1800 pp takes about 5 weeks/division to change HQ to be able to more them out. Also if the garrision falls below the require amount the Soviets can declare war correct? The greater the difference the higher the chance of war?

So it seems like this transfer of forces a) takes a long time and b) opens the door for the Russians. Where are the flaws in my understanding?



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125