RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (Full Version)

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

Message

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 12:03:01 PM)
Here is an interesting example. All planes were set to 50% CAP no rest. The groups are size 27. As would be expected 4 planes are up flying CAP and 10 are in standby and fly soon after raid is detected. The other 13 from each group scramble and also take part in intercepting the incoming sweep. [image]local://upfiles/37283/AE929E273EA94FC1B9EDC2BA4166DEFB.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 3:51:46 PM)
Now I wonder what would happen if you had bombers at that base set to an offensive mission. Would the fighters not all scramble, hoping to escort bombers? Or wait until the afternoon and all scramble then if no offensive bombing mission is launched. Curiouser & Curiouser.[:D]

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 7:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo As I've said, when I look into the leaders sometimes I convince myself it is leader aggression. Other times, I'm not sure what it is. Sometimes, I think it may have to do with the number of incoming attacks. The above picture squadron had a long, long day. And yet, the combat report you quoted showed what was clearly the first combat of the phase because the "10 on standby" are the 2/3 that are not airborne at the start of the phase but are airborne in later combats (see obvert's combat replay earlier in the thread that shows this). Was this the afternoon phase? As for the guys not set to CAP being scrambled... I will have to revisit the manual, but I've still never seen this happen. I'll keep a closer eye on things, but since I don't think I've ever seen it nor think I will, I think this is perhaps related to how I conduct my units vs. how y'all do it (i.e., I use higher CAP percentages and no rest, y'all use what I perceive to be "funny" settings). quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Now I wonder what would happen if you had bombers at that base set to an offensive mission. Would the fighters not all scramble, hoping to escort bombers? Or wait until the afternoon and all scramble then if no offensive bombing mission is launched. Curiouser & Curiouser.[:D] I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you asking if fighters not on CAP "scramble" instead of escorting bombers? Note that all air strikes are launched "at once", and this will include escorts. From observing the messages the game gives you, you can see that there are several sub-phases to each air phase. They are: 1) Search 2) Strikes launched (you will get messages about failing to link up, returning to base, etc. here). 3) Strikes resolved. This includes recon missions, which are "passive" strikes Note that escorts are launched "with" a strike (at the same time - they then try to coordinate, if Escorts were launched at all). Since strikes on the base would be resolved after the escorts have departed, they wouldn't be able to scramble. This is also why sometimes, when you bomb an airfield that has a lot of bombers based at it, you will not really destroy any of the planes based there if they're all out flying missions. You will cause them troubles when they come back for landing if the airfield is heavily damaged, but you won't be destroying them on the ground because they're off torpedoing your battleships while you're bombing their base. Is that what you were asking?

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:10:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Now I wonder what would happen if you had bombers at that base set to an offensive mission. Would the fighters not all scramble, hoping to escort bombers? Or wait until the afternoon and all scramble then if no offensive bombing mission is launched. Curiouser & Curiouser.[:D] It doesn't seem even that complicated. [:)]

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:26:47 PM)
Ok. I think I'm getting an idea of what is happening with fighters scrambling that are set to %rest or escort. I tested one-offs of a number of different combinations, starting this time with a lot of units just to see which ones had planes scrambling. I at first had 10 IJN units on CAP with two P-47D2 groups sweeping. (Aside from the scrambling stuff, the P-47s got the snot kicked out of them in ALL tests here. There is something going on with low CAP. This did not happen in my games, and I tried to get fighters in a place to climb above sweepers, usually. I'll post my 20k CAP check test at the end and you'll see what I mean). [;)] Experiment 1: 2 x A6M3 @ 40%CAP w/one group set to 20% rest. Each with good leaders. 4 x J2M2 @ 40% CAP w/two groups at 20% rest. Mixed leaders; 2 good, one with low aggression, one with low inspiration. 2 x N1K1 @ 40% CAP w/one group at 20% rest. 1 x N1K1 @ 60% CAP 40% rest. 1 x N1K1 @ 80% CAP no rest. Here is the result. Notice no groups scramble in the first wave, but four groups do scramble extra planes for the last sweep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 33 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 32 J2M2 Jack x 64 N1K1-J George x 81 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 destroyed CAP engaged: Genzan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 36250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes Hakata Ku K-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes Hakata Ku K-3 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling) 5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes Hakata Ku K-4 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling) 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes Isahaya Ku K-1 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 37450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes Isahaya Ku K-2 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 37450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes Isahaya Ku K-3 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 37450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes Isahaya Ku K-4 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 37450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters to 36250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 14 NM, estimated altitude 48,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 29 J2M2 Jack x 58 N1K1-J George x 74 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed J2M2 Jack: 1 destroyed N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 destroyed CAP engaged: Genzan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 36250 and 40450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 7 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes Hakata Ku K-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 11000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes Hakata Ku K-3 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 40450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes Hakata Ku K-4 with N1K1-J George (3 airborne, 4 on standby, 3 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes Isahaya Ku K-1 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 37000 and 43000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes Isahaya Ku K-2 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41450. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes Isahaya Ku K-3 with J2M2 Jack (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 7 scrambling) Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 37000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes Isahaya Ku K-4 with J2M2 Jack (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 44000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 36250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:29:00 PM)
Ok. The I decided to pare down to just the Georges at 7k. Four groups, still set as before. No scrambling. Experiment 2: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 13, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid detected at 31 NM, estimated altitude 46,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 81 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 4 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes Hakata Ku K-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 41000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes Hakata Ku K-3 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling) 5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes Hakata Ku K-4 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling) 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:32:28 PM)
Next I pared down to two George groups, both set to 80% CAP ala Loka. [:)] They also kick the snot out of the Thuds, and in the second sweep do scramble to keep up numbers it looks like. Experiment 3: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 14, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 31 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 72 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 8 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling) 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes Hakata Ku K-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling) 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 62 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 6 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 2 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) intercepting now. 13 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 45000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 45 minutes Hakata Ku K-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 23 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 42000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 58 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 5 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling) 6 plane(s) intercepting now. 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 45000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes Hakata Ku K-2 with N1K1-J George (8 airborne, 4 on standby, 3 scrambling) 8 plane(s) intercepting now. 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 42000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:38:41 PM)
Now things get interesting. I put the two A6M3 groups on 40% CAP 40% rest at 5k. One group scrambles on the first sweep. [:)] These also demolish the P-47s, but not as thoroughly as the Georges. Anyone who plays this game much knows A6M3 don't beat up a fresh group of P-47D2 ever. WTF?? [:-] Experiment 4: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 15, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 59 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 destroyed CAP engaged: Genzan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 31 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 36250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 36250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 14 NM, estimated altitude 46,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 41 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 2 destroyed Aircraft Attacking: 10 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet CAP engaged: Genzan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 1 on standby, 0 scrambling) 34 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 40250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 12000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 63 NM, estimated altitude 48,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 18 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 26 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed No Allied losses CAP engaged: Genzan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 22 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 42000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 68 minutes Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 16000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 51 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 60 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 17 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 24 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed No Allied losses CAP engaged: Genzan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 13 scrambling) 5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 42250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 52 minutes Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 5000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 38250. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:45:00 PM)
I was starting to get a hunch that the over-ride on rest settings to scramble fighters might be a numbers game. I then used a mano a mano approach for a while. Back to Georges. One group at 50% CAP 50% rest. I figured if they were going to all come to the party there would have to be a good reason, like not a lot in the air to begin. Not sure why it's only 4 with 8 on standby. Experiment 5: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 17, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 21 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 45 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 33 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 76 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 22 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 28 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed No Allied losses CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 24 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 40010 and 44010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes [image]local://upfiles/37283/14DB1336DDC44423A7BA93F09B9B2697.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert There is something going on with low CAP. I would have to go back and check my AAR, but I routinely put up fights like this with low, layered CAP. Well, I did when I had fighters. I thank Alfred and Lobaron for the work, also a post by theElf which talks about at what altitude the fight takes place at. He hinted, but it was enough. Players get so caught up in what they know, they forget to experiment and even then fail to understand their experiments.[:)] Heck, you gave me grief when I mentioned low CAP to you.[:D] One thing that helps explain the results, is that a planes speed is variable and related to altitude. The P47 has a top speed around 330mph down low, and really stinks at maneuver. The trick is getting the fight low. That is from a developer... Numbers always help and that is from Pax. His help understanding how to use CAP is invaluable too. Flat CAP is almost always weaker, but is useful against bombers. Keep testing, I am learning a lot from your labors. [:)]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:54:32 PM)
If you start lowering the P47 altitude the will do better.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 8:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe If you start lowering the P47 altitude the will do better. I've tried this previously, and they didn't do better. I set them usually at 42k. I've also done some tests at 31k and at 20k. I'll do that now since I'm at it though. can't hurt. [:)]

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: obvert There is something going on with low CAP. I would have to go back and check my AAR, but I routinely put up fights like this with low, layered CAP. Well, I did when I had fighters. I thank Alfred and Lobaron for the work, also a post by theElf which talks about at what altitude the fight takes place at. He hinted, but it was enough. Players get so caught up in what they know, they forget to experiment and even then fail to understand their experiments.[:)] Heck, you gave me grief when I mentioned low CAP to you.[:D] One thing that helps explain the results, is that a planes speed is variable and related to altitude. The P47 has a top speed around 330mph down low, and really stinks at maneuver. The trick is getting the fight low. That is from a developer... Numbers always help and that is from Pax. His help understanding how to use CAP is invaluable too. Flat CAP is almost always weaker, but is useful against bombers. Keep testing, I am learning a lot from your labors. [:)] I'm sorry I didn't believe you at first, but it was through a lot of experiments in game that failed. I tried virtually every setting, and definitely some low CAP stuff late game especially. I think by then there was so much on the table it was hard to isolate what was working and what wasn't. I know planes in real life have incredibly different performance at different altitude bands, but I thought all of those things were actually abstracted into the maneuver bands in game, and that a large positive differential in speed has the potential to reduce a negative differential in maneuver. Plus the dive being a big plus factor. What is surprising me here is that most of the tests working here are flat (non-layered) or single group CAP, and they're still very successful. So now back to the drawing board!!! Maybe layering is not an advantage after all. Maybe it's all altitude? [:D][&:]

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:06:37 PM)
So. Then I wanted to see if by increasing initial set CAP numbers, (adding another group), if the scrambling would desist. Two George groups at 50% CAP 50% rest. One still scrambles all planes. The other does not. Experiment 6: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 19, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 44 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 57 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 5 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 33 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes Hakata Ku K-4 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 47,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 23 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 39 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling) 29 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes Hakata Ku K-4 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 17000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:14:25 PM)
So. This is the one that began to lean toward scrambling being a numbers game. I set the George group to 70% CAP and no rest. Again at 7k. Bang. Now back to no scramble since the CAP has "enough" planes in teh air to start the commander does not send up the rest. Not sure what the threshhold is here but I noticed even an equal number of sweepers to CAP in the previous test and the scramble went up. Here it's only 32 to 24 but the Japanese unit doesn't scramble remaining planes. I could probably isolate the exact number/ratio needed to scramble all planes, but I'm sure there is a check somewhere in leader aggressiveness/inspiration too, and to get it to this close a range seems at least understandable. In game terms it'll get all messy anyway. Experiment 7: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 22, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 26 NM, estimated altitude 47,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 32 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 9 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 22 on standby, 0 scrambling) 10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:21:29 PM)
Just to see what difference the low CAP is having over a more usual setting, at the top of the highest maneuver band for instance, I set the Georges to 20k. 70% CAP no rest. No scrambling here. This time the P-47s ate em up. Total reversal. Wow. [X(] Experiment 8: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 24, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid detected at 41 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 32 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 7 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed Aircraft Attacking: 11 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 22 on standby, 0 scrambling) 10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid detected at 72 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 21 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 8 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed No Allied losses Aircraft Attacking: 3 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 42000 feet CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 41000 and 43000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:29:12 PM)
I forgot to post this one. It's maybe the most interesting, as the Georges are set to 70% CAP no rest at 7k, but sent two P-47 groups in. This pretty much confirms groups will try to scramble everything if outnumbered, even if not set to do so. Experiment 7.5: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 22, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 20 NM, estimated altitude 44,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 45 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 7 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 22 on standby, 13 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. 10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 41010. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 47 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 32 NM, estimated altitude 43,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 37 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 9 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. 24 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 46000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:47:04 PM)
Another one. I can't stop! [:'(] Here are some sweeps at 20k. These did marginally better, but still suffer. I'll have to do some tests on sweeping at different altitudes over a longer number of runs. Experiment 9: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 24, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 23,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 45 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 4 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 7 destroyed CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 22 on standby, 13 scrambling) 10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 27000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid detected at 69 NM, estimated altitude 23,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 20 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 24 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 No Japanese losses No Allied losses CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 22 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 19000 and 29000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid spotted at 53 NM, estimated altitude 23,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 15 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 20 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 3 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed No Allied losses CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 17 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 33488. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lae , at 99,126 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid detected at 32 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 17 Allied aircraft P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 24 Japanese aircraft losses N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed Aircraft Attacking: 13 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 20000 feet CAP engaged: Hakata Ku K-1 with N1K1-J George (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. 11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 21488 and 28000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:49:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert I know planes in real life have incredibly different performance at different altitude bands, but I thought all of those things were actually abstracted into the maneuver bands in game, and that a large positive differential in speed has the potential to reduce a negative differential in maneuver. Plus the dive being a big plus factor. I specifically asked a developer about the speed curve for planes and he mentioned it is in the game, and felt that it should have been given more weight in the combat routines because it was available and measurable. How do you measure maneuverability? Very interesting on a numbers game for scrambling.

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 9:51:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna And yet, the combat report you quoted showed what was clearly the first combat of the phase because the "10 on standby" are the 2/3 that are not airborne at the start of the phase but are airborne in later combats (see obvert's combat replay earlier in the thread that shows this). Was this the afternoon phase? Lok, This was the first combat of many during the morning. The manual clearly states their is a detection level for incoming attacks. The better the DL, the more likely the CAP bounces the Sweepers.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 10:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: obvert I know planes in real life have incredibly different performance at different altitude bands, but I thought all of those things were actually abstracted into the maneuver bands in game, and that a large positive differential in speed has the potential to reduce a negative differential in maneuver. Plus the dive being a big plus factor. I specifically asked a developer about the speed curve for planes and he mentioned it is in the game, and felt that it should have been given more weight in the combat routines because it was available and measurable. How do you measure maneuverability? Roll rate was a huge factor in fighter maneuverability performance in the war, although not the only factor. Others can get into more details than I can. Pax, Alfred and LoBaron could definitely add here. Not sure if this is what you're asking? Here is a roll-rate chart showing many airframes. [image]local://upfiles/37283/CB41DB5FAD3942FF9A5E24FF375203E7.gif[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/4/2016 11:57:43 PM)
That is neat...does it correlate with the game at all? Not being a pilot, or aeronautical engineer, pretty lost here to tell the truth.[:D]

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 9:16:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe That is neat...does it correlate with the game at all? Not being a pilot, or aeronautical engineer, pretty lost here to tell the truth.[:D] As far as I know the maneuver band numbers for each airframe in game are derived from the complex data ragarding aircraft performance. It seems there are a lot of different ideas of what makes the "best" fighter, and of course it all depends on how it is used/flown against it's opponents (and what those are, how they are flown, etc). This is from a thread on maneuverability and seems somewhat credible as a list of what factors can be measured. As was pointed out by several posters, the term "maneuverability" is very open ended. I spend a lot of my time working on evaluating flying qualities and performance as an aero engineer, albeit on modern FBW fighters, but of course the basic physics didn't change. I guess you could define maneuverability as the ability to quickly change from one state to another. Roll rate and roll acceleration would therefore influence how quickly you can change from one bank angle to another. Pitch rate influences how quickly you can change from one load factor to another, etc. Similarly turn rate influences how quickly you can change heading. There are several maneuverability parameters that influence the usefulness of a fighter in combat. To name just a few: Initial roll acceleration Maximum roll rate (these two are not the same) Maximum pitch rate Maximum load factor Best instantaneous turn rate Best sustained turn rate Acceleration performance Best climb rate etc. Many of these blurr the boundaries between "maneuverability" and "performance".

LoBaron -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 12:25:35 PM)
Obvert, many thanks for the testing effort and for sharing the data with us. Your approach is very sound, although I would like to remind you that the number of data points per test scenario are probably below a threshold that would be required for geniuine statistics. quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Maybe layering is not an advantage after all. Maybe it's all altitude? The effectiveness of layered CAP is quite dependent on the usual suspects (type of airframe, pilot quality, group leader, number of a/c involved on both sides, etc.). Also, layered CAP also serves different purposes. One is to counter high altitude sweep missions in qualitatively or quantitatively adverse situations. Another one is to spread the risk. Usually the attacker holds the initiative, so as a defender you often do not know in advance what types of air threats you will have to counter. CAP layers enable you to deal with multiple attack types and varying numbers better than single layer defenses - but again, the added benefit varies with a lot of additional factors. Do not forget that as a tester you have control over both setups and receive accurate information about the results for both sides. This is no PBEM situation. quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Many of these blurr the boundaries between "maneuverability" and "performance". Exactly. In game this is what mvr band values represent. The list of items in your quote is quite complete. Be aware that there is a slight difference between mvr value and alt band mvr value. Basic mvr rating takes less factors into account than mvr band rating. This is due to the fact that the former describes one data point of several (the others are top speed and climb rating), the latter represents a modifier for all three variables. For mvr value you might want to add stall behaviour to the list, for mvr band value you might want to add altitude related top speed variations. Anyways, great testing, keep it coming! I would like at some point to link this thread to the coordination guide to add the empirical data to the theoretical framework, pending your approval.

Alfred -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 1:45:11 PM)
For maneuverability, a lot can be gleaned from Symon's posts in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3405381&mpage=1&key=maneuverability&#3407043 where he explained how he adjusted aircraft stats for DaBabes. Alfred

PaxMondo -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 2:34:56 PM)
some light reading on the topic ... working on attachment ...

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 2:46:29 PM)
so, when this research project is completed, will there be a paper published?

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 4:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron One is to counter high altitude sweep missions in qualitatively or quantitatively adverse situations. I wanted to thank you for your past posts on this. I believe Alfred and Pax Mondo both referred me to your posts, plus the sticky, and it has really made a difference in my games. Both in being competitive, but also in a richer understanding of how deep this game is. Many thanks.[&o][sm=happy0065.gif] Lowpe

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 5:42:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Obvert, many thanks for the testing effort and for sharing the data with us. Your approach is very sound, although I would like to remind you that the number of data points per test scenario are probably below a threshold that would be required for geniuine statistics. Thanks LoBaron for your support, and I completely appreciate the point that these don't quite measure up to final objective analysis as yet. I'm still feeling it out, and next plan to test the test a bit, mainly to see how many runs it might take to really make sure the set is enough. If I run another 10 on the low CAP high SWEEP layers and get +/- 5 losses for each side, that to me would indicate that 10 is good. If it's much more variable, and not in that kind of range the second time around, then I need to really work! [:)] Another thing I'm concerned about is weather. I can change it or leave it (almost always) the same by running the same turn over and over (using one slight variable to create randomness), but I'm not sure which is most useful. The game does have weather variability, but I'm not sure if certain weather would skew results one direction or another? If you have any suggestions there I'd welcome your thoughts. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Maybe layering is not an advantage after all. Maybe it's all altitude? The effectiveness of layered CAP is quite dependent on the usual suspects (type of airframe, pilot quality, group leader, number of a/c involved on both sides, etc.). Also, layered CAP also serves different purposes. One is to counter high altitude sweep missions in qualitatively or quantitatively adverse situations. Another one is to spread the risk. Usually the attacker holds the initiative, so as a defender you often do not know in advance what types of air threats you will have to counter. CAP layers enable you to deal with multiple attack types and varying numbers better than single layer defenses - but again, the added benefit varies with a lot of additional factors. Do not forget that as a tester you have control over both setups and receive accurate information about the results for both sides. This is no PBEM situation. Yes. This is what I've always thought and thought I'd experienced. These last few one-offs, not tests really, just a series of explorative experiments, got me thinking. I've also noticed that when I did run a large strike against the layered CAP in the same setup, but with more groups, the effectiveness of low CAP changed. I'd also tweaked which airframes were at each band, so it seems that made a BIG difference. Now I've got more to consider! [;)] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Many of these blurr the boundaries between "maneuverability" and "performance". Exactly. In game this is what mvr band values represent. The list of items in your quote is quite complete. Be aware that there is a slight difference between mvr value and alt band mvr value. Basic mvr rating takes less factors into account than mvr band rating. This is due to the fact that the former describes one data point of several (the others are top speed and climb rating), the latter represents a modifier for all three variables. For mvr value you might want to add stall behaviour to the list, for mvr band value you might want to add altitude related top speed variations. Anyways, great testing, keep it coming! I would like at some point to link this thread to the coordination guide to add the empirical data to the theoretical framework, pending your approval. Link away if you think it's useful. At some point there may be some revelations, conclusions or theories reached, but for now it's all feeling it out and so hopefully others can provide insight, ideas, suggestions and critique.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 5:46:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan so, when this research project is completed, will there be a paper published? Yes. Right here. Published in this thread. You've just written part of it! [:D]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875