RE: B-17 supremacy (Full Version)

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



Message

VMF 214 -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/7/2012 3:28:50 PM)

could be they all attack as 1 but the report breaks them down as attacking in small waves....I don't know myself. Someone with the inner workings knowledge can answer that....but I would have to agree you don't park your CV's in range of any enemy bombers. I am amazed at the people on this forum with their knowledge. I play this game as a game you all play this as a science. This is a lesson learned and won't do that again moment [8|]



LoBaron -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/7/2012 4:13:41 PM)

VMF 214, basically what the OP was trying to do was create a thread 5 pages long by trolling.

It has nothing to do with any constructive critizism of game mechanics, he posted a random combat report deliberately blunt enough to get a very opposite
reaction, and then fuelled the fire. Thats it, nothing more. And I doubt he learned anything by doing so, except that he succeeds from time to time. [;)]



mike scholl 1 -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/7/2012 5:37:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VMF 214

if I may add my $.02.....I think what the OP is saying is that there was 11 separate attacks with 1-6 planes in each attack. I believe he thinks it should be like in Europe 1 attack with all planes in the attack....in effect carpet bombing not wave after wave of small groups. Now I am no expert at this game and leave that to you fine people but is that how the game uses a mass amount of level bombers? Did they in fact in the Pacific use smaller plane runs rather then the big formations like in the European theater?



This was not necessarily the case..., even in Europe. It all depended on the fighter opposition. In daylight over Germany it tended to be vicious, and American Bomber formations maintained their tight defensive boxes when bombing. But RAF Bomber Command ALWAYS bombed individually night or day---and the Americans did likewise in the Pacific most of the time because fighter opposition was scanty and accuracy much improved.



bigred -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/8/2012 2:06:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So your carriers were damaged and burning you disbanded them at port, that fine and reasonable but, all of them ? Next time leave the cripples behind and move the rest into safety.
Also in such a situation remove the planes especially the fighters and place them at the airfield to protect your precious and fly in even more fighters.

These are things you could have done after bringing yourself in this kind of mess. As stated before, using carriers in remote locations is risky and if something goes wrong yer in big podoo.

Your situation only barely has something to do with are 4Es broken or OP or not. You made a mess out of it and need to rethink that whole situation.

Thank you for lesson. But again. I dont worry about these scenario.
I talking about bug in game.
B-17, right now, it long-range, well-protected, well-defended DIVE BOMBER.
In really, they was useless againt maritime and slightly useful against land targets (area).
It all what i want by opening this thread - B-17 as level-bomber.
In my cause AAR must look like 1-2 hits in flattops and 6-7 hits in a hundred other ships and harbour.
It how work real math for area bombers.


You may have a point concerning real life simulation. Remember this is a game and when the program makes a change it effect alot of variable. In this case I would bet the program is as close to real life as the programmers could get it without effecting other issues. Make a suggestion on the tech thread...You might get a change. This issue cuts against both players in the game so most players just deal with it.



Dili -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/8/2012 3:45:58 AM)

The game always have the problem when many bombs are launched from a single plane. It doesn't roll the dice per bomber but per bomb so in game all 10 bombs from a sole B-17 can hit a dhow even if in reality it was impossible.



btbw -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/8/2012 4:24:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
You may have a point concerning real life simulation. Remember this is a game and when the program makes a change it effect alot of variable. In this case I would bet the program is as close to real life as the programmers could get it without effecting other issues. Make a suggestion on the tech thread...You might get a change. This issue cuts against both players in the game so most players just deal with it.

We dont need real life simulation. But progammer can easy fix problem with attacking all best ships in port. Need to distribute potential damage between few different ship. Potential damage can depend from port size, amount ships here, DL, defense.
For example 40 B-17 attack port size 3 with 100 ships = accuracy close to 27 (30% initial - port size +/mods), 8 effective hits to ships (class of ships hitted depend from their tonnage and air doctrine), let say 2 hits to ships CV class, 2 hits to BB/CA class, 4 hits to merchants and aux.
IF we attack port 10 size it mean ships have more ability for spread in large zone area or change their place each day, or masced. So level bombers will have accuracy like 20% without mods.
All probability can be result of math phormulas with random generated rolls inside.
Current hit system very simple and unadequate.
About affection on both side. Japan medium LB have much lower bombload. But they have much more maneur ability and all 2E. It can be added to phormula (+ from maneur and +from number of engines) so both 2E MB (Japs and Allies) will have much more accuracy in port attacks then bigbirds. And can attack more valued ships.



vettim89 -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/8/2012 6:08:43 AM)

I cannot believe this thread is still going!!!!!![X(]

Might I suggest that one bad Combat result does not justify rehashing the code. Did the japanese get a reroll at Midway? Did the USN get a reroll at Savo Island. Weird things happened in RL. They will happen in the game.

btbw, how long have you been playing AE? I ask becuase there are many people here that have played the game for thousands of hours. That is not an exageration. I personally easily have over two thousand hours in WitP experience (probably a gross underestimate) and likely over one thousand in AE (four PBEM, two GC against the AI, plus several Downfall, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and Marianas Campaigns). My point being is perhaps you should listen more than talk at this stage of your AE experience


Man, I need to get a life. Three thousand hours playing this game over the past five years. God, help me



frank1970 -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/8/2012 7:13:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

The game always have the problem when many bombs are launched from a single plane. It doesn't roll the dice per bomber but per bomb so in game all 10 bombs from a sole B-17 can hit a dhow even if in reality it was impossible.


And here we are. Of course heavy bomber accuracy is scary high, too high. That´s why there are several mods out which reduce the hit propability and increaase damage by defining stacks instead of single bombs.



nate25 -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/10/2012 1:51:40 AM)

All,

Yoda this was.

Very bad were the B-17s.

Not his fault was the placement of crippled CVs in range of aforementioned B-17s.

Only a simulation this is.

Over this topic should be.

Thanks,
Nate



denisonh -> RE: B-17 supremacy (2/10/2012 2:00:19 AM)

Stupid is as stupid does.

As someone who has done modeling of combat outcomes at graduate level and for a living, the SINGLE result posted was plausible. To make any kind of substantive assessment on the model, you need to a series of observations to assess the behavior of the model. Chaos is an inherent characteristic of combat models due to the low number of observations and wide range of outcomes. This is not chess, so anyone expecting a consistent "expected value" for an outcome "should" be disappointed.

Bring me 20 outcomes under the same sitiuation and then we can evaluate the model.

Other than that, one has to go no further than the foolish decision that invited the aforementioned outcome. This is an illustration why you look at the rather conservative decision making of ACTUAL admirals/generals, because they were more sensitive to the potential negative outcomes.

You bet on the come and lost.

Buck up and move on dude.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1