quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks Big B!

Your post at the time made sense to me, but I inferred that these speed/altitude data points might have been included in the a2a modelling. You here seem to imply that it is not.[&:]

It is ok, to tell the truth, because what makes this game so enjoyable is the hidden complexity under the hood even if it is less complex than what I think or my assumptions are baseless. Did that make sense?[:D]

No they ARE all in the a2a modelling, I was just suggesting a different way to model it. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks so much Alfred. I have often wondered about the 70mph rule...seems so fixed, simplistic and arbitrary in such a deep game. But Pax is usually so right.[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Fighting the Jugs with these planes try:

Put the Zeroes at 3K, 30/20 (CAP/Rest). Use only one squadron (they are bait).

Layer the Tonies and the Tojo starting at 6K and go up to 9K. Keep the Tonies on the lower end of the spectrum, and run all these groups at 40/20. Don't go above 9k.

All fighters to range 0.

The Zeroes will get butchered most times, but you will start to drop Jugs. With these frames I suspect your losses will be 3-1 or slightly less. Make sure you are using your very best fighters in the Tojo.

Make sure you have radar, radar, and more radar.

Do the math: you want fighters that are not 70mph slower; with CL cannons preferably; high maneuver; great pilots a2a and def; 200+ planes; great squadron leaders; radar; big airfields with plentiful supply and support on railroads; watch plane fatigue, pilot fatigue, morale.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Frank A, Tony d or better, George and Jack can provide cannons but keep them protected from the dive (especially the 2nd Jack I think is too slow). The bait squadron needs to have very high defense pilots or just use throw aways.

If the bombers come, even your fighters at 3K will fight them given enough radars...

No reason to play the high altitude game. After several encounters like this, you will see the Allies drop their sweeping altitude for a number of reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Fighting the Jugs with these planes try:

Put the Zeroes at 3K, 30/20 (CAP/Rest). Use only one squadron (they are bait).

Layer the Tonies and the Tojo starting at 6K and go up to 9K. Keep the Tonies on the lower end of the spectrum, and run all these groups at 40/20. Don't go above 9k.

All fighters to range 0.

The Zeroes will get butchered most times, but you will start to drop Jugs. With these frames I suspect your losses will be 3-1 or slightly less. Make sure you are using your very best fighters in the Tojo.

Make sure you have radar, radar, and more radar.

Do the math: you want fighters that are not 70mph slower; with CL cannons preferably; high maneuver; great pilots a2a and def; 200+ planes; great squadron leaders; radar; big airfields with plentiful supply and support on railroads; watch plane fatigue, pilot fatigue, morale.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Frank A, Tony d or better, George and Jack can provide cannons but keep them protected from the dive (especially the 2nd Jack I think is too slow). The bait squadron needs to have very high defense pilots or just use throw aways.

If the bombers come, even your fighters at 3K will fight them given enough radars...

No reason to play the high altitude game. After several encounters like this, you will see the Allies drop their sweeping altitude for a number of reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hmn, until this thread came along, I cannot recall ever reading anyone putting forward this 50/70mph threshold.  And I usually retain a recollection of seeing a subject which I can then search the forum to refresh myself on the details.  Considering that it seems to be players who predominantly play Japan who are talking about this 50/70 mph threshold, it seems likely that this discussion has been had in Japanese AARs which I don't read.

I can see how, as a very rough rule of thumb, some credence may have been given in the past to a misrepresentation of what theElf wrote in mid 2008.  If you did have planes flying with a 70mph delta then there is a much higher possibility of the maximum 50% maneuver reduction ultimately occurring than if the delta is only 20%, certeris paribus.  But everything is not the same and it is impossible for a player to know the exact factors which are taken into account in the complex matrix.  For example, the example which theElf used in mid 2008 to explain air combat, (posting the special debug combat report which is only available to the devs), had a P-40B flying at 293 mph at the point of combat.  Clearly that speed is not the maximum speed of that aircraft model which was determined by all the factors (including altitude, number of aircraft, pilot experience, leader stats etc) which are not fully disclosed and most definitely not quantified in the algorithms.  In short under certain circumstances, an aircraft with a lower maximum speed (eg A2M) may end up with a faster speed at the point of combat with a P-40B and it is the latter's maneuver rating which is decreased within the range of 1-50%.

It is one thing for players to post about rough rules of thumb.  It makes it easier to understand the under the hood relationships.  But the danger is that someone then misunderstands the rule of thumb and then starts to present it as an accurate and comprehensive explanation of how the under the hood routines operate.  That is how AE myths develop and remain alive.  It is why I generally go back to "primary" sources and refresh my memory before posting answers.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

[image]local://upfiles/16855/FB0B293FD09D442395B813327D80DA70.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

[image]local://upfiles/16855/FB0B293FD09D442395B813327D80DA70.jpg[/image]

I love this graphic ... 70" Hg boost ...you have to build engines to appreciate how much this is ... production cars with turbos get to 15" Hg boost if they are lucky... if you build your own you might go to 25 - 30" boost, but it hard to do and keep the engine together for more than a few minutes.

But those Big A$$ radials back in the day, they could take a LOT of boost. 70" was the design and the mechanics would tweak this ... risky, but they did it. Blowing a motor wasn't much better outcome than getting shot down, but it was a little better ... at least you had a glide path ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

[image]local://upfiles/16855/FB0B293FD09D442395B813327D80DA70.jpg[/image]

I love this graphic ... 70" Hg boost ...you have to build engines to appreciate how much this is ... production cars with turbos get to 15" Hg boost if they are lucky... if you build your own you might go to 25 - 30" boost, but it hard to do and keep the engine together for more than a few minutes.

But those Big A$$ radials back in the day, they could take a LOT of boost. 70" was the design and the mechanics would tweak this ... risky, but they did it. Blowing a motor wasn't much better outcome than getting shot down, but it was a little better ... at least you had a glide path ...

OMG! - Are you an old-fashioned motor-head??!!

You understand the things I'm talking about??!!
(I raced every High HP bike and muscle car back in the day [70's]... it's gladdening to think some people still get it)

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

I dropped my cap down to 8-10-16k. Zero, tojo and tony. Kill ratio 7 jugs for 30 fighters. Much improved[:)]

scott

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I drive a '63 F100 4x4 and a '68 Stang. I'm way old school ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

I dropped my cap down to 8-10-16k. Zero, tojo and tony. Kill ratio 7 jugs for 30 fighters. Much improved[:)]

scott

Go even lower, I think you should be able to achieve 3-1 losses with those planes hopefully. Fiddle with which group flies in each altitude band...and most of all watch the replay for clues on who is diving and counter diving.

Of course you could simply avoid fighting too. It depends upon your tactics for dealing with Jugs sweeps.

quote:




Post New Poll


Submit Vote


Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hmn, until this thread came along, I cannot recall ever reading anyone putting forward this 50/70mph threshold.  And I usually retain a recollection of seeing a subject which I can then search the forum to refresh myself on the details.  Considering that it seems to be players who predominantly play Japan who are talking about this 50/70 mph threshold, it seems likely that this discussion has been had in Japanese AARs which I don't read.

I can see how, as a very rough rule of thumb, some credence may have been given in the past to a misrepresentation of what theElf wrote in mid 2008.  If you did have planes flying with a 70mph delta then there is a much higher possibility of the maximum 50% maneuver reduction ultimately occurring than if the delta is only 20%, certeris paribus.  But everything is not the same and it is impossible for a player to know the exact factors which are taken into account in the complex matrix.  For example, the example which theElf used in mid 2008 to explain air combat, (posting the special debug combat report which is only available to the devs), had a P-40B flying at 293 mph at the point of combat.  Clearly that speed is not the maximum speed of that aircraft model which was determined by all the factors (including altitude, number of aircraft, pilot experience, leader stats etc) which are not fully disclosed and most definitely not quantified in the algorithms.  In short under certain circumstances, an aircraft with a lower maximum speed (eg A2M) may end up with a faster speed at the point of combat with a P-40B and it is the latter's maneuver rating which is decreased within the range of 1-50%.

It is one thing for players to post about rough rules of thumb.  It makes it easier to understand the under the hood relationships.  But the danger is that someone then misunderstands the rule of thumb and then starts to present it as an accurate and comprehensive explanation of how the under the hood routines operate.  That is how AE myths develop and remain alive.  It is why I generally go back to "primary" sources and refresh my memory before posting answers.

Alfred

Great post! [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

Well known that the American assets in this game, naval and air, are modeled in favor of anything the Japanese field.
It was made for the US player.
Even if it is a little overboard with the results and performance of these airframes.
The Japanese airframes later in the war where actually quite good, but they lacked the experienced pilots.
Personally, I never play allied anymore, it is just to easy, even on ironman.

The Japanese player never gets rewarded with good air frame and good pilots vs US later airframes and level 60+ pilots.
Scripted for allied favor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall
[...]actually gives a fair results.[...]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

I disagree, plenty of examples from the Japanese point, when experienced pilots encountered US planes, and shot them down.


And equally plenty of examples where less experienced Allied pilots shot down their more experienced Japanese pilots.

So your point is what? That when you command Japan absolutely every air combat should result in a Japanese air victory irrespective of the tactical situation, your orders, your settings.[/I]


The Franks and George where very good planes, the problem for the Japanese where the number of experienced pilots left.


Simply not true. The list of disadvantages which experienced pilots faced in flying them is quite long. Good players of Japan are not handicapped like their historical counterparts, using experienced pilots, not suffering fuel problems, not having to experience structural disintegrations, avoid the bulk of maintenance issues, to name just a few.

Just because the Frank and George were better than the Nate and Claude does not mean they were better airframes than their Allied equivalents.[/I]


In game results almost always favor the allied side.


This is an absolute lie with of course no evidence adduced. Future exemplars from your own praxis do not count because you are not skilled enough to get good results.

If you are experiencing this it is because you are a very poor player who does not do things right. Read the reports from those players who know how to play Japan properly to see how the results reflect the skill of the players involved.[/I]


The game is scripted to be favorable to the allied cause after 1943.


Got any evidence to back up this defamatory claim.

1. What exactly has been coded to favour the Allied player?

2. How exactly has history been rewritten to favour the Allied cause?

3. Ever considered that maybe Japan has been scripted to get favourable results before 1943?

Considering you don't have access to the code and based on your other posts in this thread have never understood what the devs have previously posted regarding the code operation, you will have zero chance of providing any intelligent replies but 100% guarantee of displaying your ignorance.[/I]


before mid 1943 the Japanese had the advantage, up to end 1942.


Care to quantify what this advantage was. After all Japan , with the outstanding contribution provided by its aircraft, performed so brilliantly achieving all its objectives at

• Coral Sea (May 1942)
  
• Guadalcanal (August 1942)
  
• Midway (June 1942)
  
• Milne Bay (September 1942)
  
• First landing at Wake Island (December 1941)
  
• Advance over the Kokoda Track to capture Port Moresby (August -October 1942)
  
• Battle of Bismarck Sea (March 1943)
  
• the elimination of China before December 1941
  

Then there are the very close run operations where Japan was on the very of failure such as Singapore (Feb 1942) and Bataan (April 1942).

Strong Japanese players, which you clearly does not apply to you, achieve much better game results than their historical counterparts.[/I]


After that it declines and the results reflect that.


Again what declines. Incredible that strong Japanese players remain competitive well into 1945 in a manner which their historical counterparts were not able to be competitive.


But then, reproducing air combat in a algorithm is never going to be accurate.


How many algorithms have you ever coded. The obvious answer is none.

Accurate for what? Or are you saying that modern militaries and commercial airlines spend millions on flight simulators which provide no real world conditions. Why would they waste their money and the time of their trainee pilots teaching them wrong lessons.[/I]


I think the game did well, but could be a little more balanced in the results after 1943.


And how exactly do you propose doing that. A weak player, such as yourself, is always going to be creamed by stronger players. It is not the role of a game designer to build into the game code automatic mulligans for your own poor play and mistakes.

So humour me, exactly what should be altered. Keeping in mind that the historical capabilities are not up for modification. There are games out there which are not historical, they may suit your skill level better.[/I]


more on pilot experience and less on speed and dive bonus.


Who said that isn't the case now.

Equipped with your profound ignorance of the game code, maybe you could gives us a master lesson on what

1. Pilot experience
2. Speed
3. Dive bonus

impact on the game combat algorithms.

When you do provide us with that master lesson, don't forget to incorporate the other factors which are fed into the combat algorithms.[/I]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

Well known that the American assets in this game, naval and air, are modeled in favor of anything the Japanese field.
It was made for the US player.
Even if it is a little overboard with the results and performance of these airframes.
The Japanese airframes later in the war where actually quite good, but they lacked the experienced pilots.
Personally, I never play allied anymore, it is just to easy, even on ironman.

The Japanese player never gets rewarded with good air frame and good pilots vs US later airframes and level 60+ pilots.
Scripted for allied favor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

I disagree, plenty of examples from the Japanese point, when experienced pilots encountered US planes, and shot them down.
The Franks and George where very good planes, the problem for the Japanese where the number of experienced pilots left.

In game results almost always favor the allied side.
The game is scripted to be favorable to the allied cause after 1943.
before mid 1943 the Japanese had the advantage, up to end 1942.
After that it declines and the results reflect that.

But then, reproducing air combat in a algorithm is never going to be accurate.
I think the game did well, but could be a little more balanced in the results after 1943.
more on pilot experience and less on speed and dive bonus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

I wonder if I can get a refund on my game since my version did not come with the built in allied bias. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

I wonder if I can get a refund on my game since my version did not come with the built in allied bias. [:D]