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 (4/5/2016 5:59:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred 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� where he explained how he adjusted aircraft stats for DaBabes. Alfred Thanks Alfred. There is a lot there!!!

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/5/2016 6:21:27 PM)
You need more n. About the scrambling. It looks like the "first" group (i.e., the top one in the list) is always doing the scrambling? That still suggests to me that it's a numbers check. Try setting one enormous unit (say, 200?) to 50% CAP and see if they scramble ever. Did the 80% CAP units not scramble? I also noted that the 2 results where the P-47D2's got trounced were in combats where they were massively outnumbered at the start, prior to scrambled planes (the first one in your big string of posts, and then the 80% CAP with Georges).

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 6:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna You need more n. About the scrambling. It looks like the "first" group (i.e., the top one in the list) is always doing the scrambling? That still suggests to me that it's a numbers check. Try setting one enormous unit (say, 200?) to 50% CAP and see if they scramble ever. Did the 80% CAP units not scramble? I also noted that the 2 results where the P-47D2's got trounced were in combats where they were massively outnumbered at the start, prior to scrambled planes (the first one in your big string of posts, and then the 80% CAP with Georges). For these yes, more n. These were really just to experiment on what might be happening, and of course the unexpected results that some of the single CAP groups did so well makes me curious. Even when the CAP only held a 32-24 advantage they still did very well. I fear these kinds of results when I play the Allies so I'd like to get to the bottom of what's happening. One single N1K1 George group at 7k, flying 363mph, shouldn't beat up P-47s, no matter if they are slightly outnumbered. I mixed around the groups flying to see why that first group was scrambling, and that again will require more runs. I couldn't see a reason why that group when only one group scrambled. The 80% CAP did scramble fighters late in Experiment 1, to intercept the last sweepers. I didn't see those groups scramble on first sweeps though. The 70% CAP did scramble. I think it's just numbers, and if I sent 4 sweeping groups, then the 80% CAP would also scramble. The P-47 were beat up the worst against the 70% CAP groups that scrambled. So a lot up, then more added in to low CAP 9probably with plenty of time to arrive en masse). They also suffered i nnearly every test though, including the 50% CAP 50% rest. The goal of that setting would be to keep a section of planes in ready state to meet bombers later, although now I know they'll all scramble anyway!! So maybe it's really a setting now to ensure a scramble occurs and all planes get into the air. Some of my best results in tests and game came with a 50% CAP no rest. I see why a bit more now, although it always confused me why those would be better than 60-80% CAP, which I've also tried. I also want to do some tests on LR CAP and how it works when scrambled. I often use 70-80% LR CAP 20-30% rest on those thinking some at least will get rest. Now I think maybe 50% LR CAP is better and allow the commander to assess strength of raid for scrambling it all. But I'll have to test that! [;)]

Yaab -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 7:09:01 AM)
Uhm, are you actually watching the combat animations? I am curious at what altitude the combat really takes place if you have defenders at 3-10k feet and attackers at 43k feet.

Encircled -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 9:40:53 AM)
Don't send me any turns for a while, I'm experimenting! [:)] Great read by the way and fascinating!

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 10:58:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Uhm, are you actually watching the combat animations? I am curious at what altitude the combat really takes place if you have defenders at 3-10k feet and attackers at 43k feet. Nope. I'm not. For some reason in H to H I can't get them to turn on?? Is this normal? Been meaning to ask but haven't found it absolutely necessary to watch yet, and to be honest can get a lot more figured out quickly if I don't watch. Maybe I'll create a false PBEM to myself and do H to H that way for a bit, thus getting animations. I do want to watch a few, but not all. It matters of course, and I could learn some of that stuff, but by tweaking the test I can also "see" a lot of what is happening. Earlier I also restricted the airframes to 10k max, and this showed slightly different results. I can do this on any of these settings too in order to check if they're staying down ( and what effect that would have) vs rising to meet sweeps.

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 4:16:58 PM)
Nope, I have played my son head to head, and have the combat replays work, we both watched them after the Allied turn entered. Very enjoyable.[:)] It maybe you need to have them turned on prior to creating the game and F8 doesn't work once set at game start. I just discovered F8 works in PBEM, I don't believe that was the case in prior patches/versions. At least I can toggle them on/of as the Japanese during the replay. Not sure about the Allied side.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 4:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Nope, I have played my son head to head, and have the combat replays work, we both watched them after the Allied turn entered. Very enjoyable.[:)] It maybe you need to have them turned on prior to creating the game and F8 doesn't work once set at game start. I just discovered F8 works in PBEM, I don't believe that was the case in prior patches/versions. At least I can toggle them on/of as the Japanese during the replay. Not sure about the Allied side. Okay. I tried before I opened the scenario. I go through it again since I know I need to see some soon. For this part it's been good to blow through a lot of turns and get some questions going, and now it'll be about getting deeper into them. Trouble is, there area lot of questions!

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 5:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert I mixed around the groups flying to see why that first group was scrambling, and that again will require more runs. I couldn't see a reason why that group when only one group scrambled. The 80% CAP did scramble fighters late in Experiment 1, to intercept the last sweepers. I didn't see those groups scramble on first sweeps though. The 70% CAP did scramble. I think it's just numbers, and if I sent 4 sweeping groups, then the 80% CAP would also scramble. I was trying to suggest that perhaps only the first group scrambled because it's a check against numbers, and once that group has scrambled planes then the numbers check is being "passed" such that there is no more scrambling. I think you should take your "failed sweep" results and change the Allied pilots to 80 XP and see what happens, mainly because only on just a couple of occasions over hundreds of sweeps have I had poor or even negative results with P-47D2's, P-47D25's, or P-51D's except for sometimes the first group of 25 (of which 22 will arrive together...) sweeping into a CAP of 100+. I suspect because of pilot quality.

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 5:01:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Trouble is, there area lot of questions! [:)] Its not like you have a game currently. I am convinced that in this game it isn't just about who carries the biggest stick, but who reads and understands the devices and uses them better/appropriately. I have been known to be very wrong![:D][:D]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 5:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I was trying to suggest that perhaps only the first group scrambled because it's a check against numbers, and once that group has scrambled planes then the numbers check is being "passed" such that there is no more scrambling. Good point.[&o]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 5:07:47 PM)
Since Jocke got his turn, I will post a complete summary of the Tojo fight referenced earlier. Note, we have an altitude cap of 20K, but looking at the altitudes we are scrambled too, the range of the fight well exceeds the altitude cap. Also, every unit scrambled. Morning Air attack on Coal Harbour , at 204,49 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 14 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 44 A6M5 Zero x 16 Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 18 Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 42 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 28 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 1 destroyed Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 12 destroyed CAP engaged: Shoho-1/C with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 7 scrambling) 2 plane(s) intercepting now. 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 23000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes Kamikawa Maru-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling) 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 22000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes 33rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 7 scrambling) 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 25000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes 85th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 29 scrambling) 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 24000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes 12th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 12 scrambling) 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 25000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes 15th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 16 scrambling) 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 24000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes In addition is there any method for how the Fighter squadrons are listed?

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 5:53:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: obvert I mixed around the groups flying to see why that first group was scrambling, and that again will require more runs. I couldn't see a reason why that group when only one group scrambled. The 80% CAP did scramble fighters late in Experiment 1, to intercept the last sweepers. I didn't see those groups scramble on first sweeps though. The 70% CAP did scramble. I think it's just numbers, and if I sent 4 sweeping groups, then the 80% CAP would also scramble. I was trying to suggest that perhaps only the first group scrambled because it's a check against numbers, and once that group has scrambled planes then the numbers check is being "passed" such that there is no more scrambling. I think you should take your "failed sweep" results and change the Allied pilots to 80 XP and see what happens, mainly because only on just a couple of occasions over hundreds of sweeps have I had poor or even negative results with P-47D2's, P-47D25's, or P-51D's except for sometimes the first group of 25 (of which 22 will arrive together...) sweeping into a CAP of 100+. I suspect because of pilot quality. I agree on the numbers check. I also suspect that is exactly what is happening. In the past more thorough test experiment with the Ki-84r groups i did change the groups to 80+ EXP pilots and the results were slightly better but still negative. (see image below) In some one-offs though recently, I did notice that with the set of groups I chose to use fro one the results were really different than the set with another arrangement. Merely different airframes at different altitudes. Same settings. That is something I'd like to explore, but it gets really complicated! [:(][:)] [image]local://upfiles/37283/5AA2928B212A40928A1EC8EDD8F6BCBF.jpg[/image]

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 6:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Since Jocke got his turn, I will post a complete summary of the Tojo fight referenced earlier. Note, we have an altitude cap of 20K, but looking at the altitudes we are scrambled too, the range of the fight well exceeds the altitude cap. Also, every unit scrambled. In addition is there any method for how the Fighter squadrons are listed? Yeah. No idea. You certainly had a lot of planes up early based on the scrambling of all groups. That probably is related not to this particular sweep but the accumulated strikes incoming as picked up by radar. So everybody got sent up knowing what was on the way. Also, as stated earlier by LoBaron maybe even years ago, during one of my difficulties with CAP behavior, the order of the animation and CR is not representative necessarily. Some of the combats may be seen to take place continuously. So if this one starts that doesn't mean it all happens before the next. It begins and then the next begins and adds to it, then the next adds on, etc. That is confusing since the animation can only show one package interacting with CAP at a time. There is some order of course, as we know what happens when bombers arrive first, but it's not always what we're seeing exactly.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 6:59:42 PM)
Also, I have run some isolated experiments I should mention. 1. Can a Japanese bomber shoot down intercepting Allied fighters? Yes. This question has been thrown around since players rarely see a direct kill by Japanese bombers. I changed the armament of a Helen to add more rear defensive guns and 6 x 12.7mm to the nose. I've long been aware that the fixed nose guns of the B-25D-1 act in defense to make it a bane of Japanese CAP, so I wanted to see if the same would be true if it was a Japanese bomber. I suspect there is a formation bonus for Allied bombers, but I haven't tested this at all yet. That'll be fun to check. [;)] Here is the result. Obviously one run means little but a few fighters were shot down! [image]local://upfiles/37283/0CDCE198A9634066AB2E80D9BEE43EC3.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 7:17:30 PM)
I have a few kills to the Betty that bristles with 20mm cannons. Primarily during night attacks.

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 7:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: obvert I mixed around the groups flying to see why that first group was scrambling, and that again will require more runs. I couldn't see a reason why that group when only one group scrambled. The 80% CAP did scramble fighters late in Experiment 1, to intercept the last sweepers. I didn't see those groups scramble on first sweeps though. The 70% CAP did scramble. I think it's just numbers, and if I sent 4 sweeping groups, then the 80% CAP would also scramble. I was trying to suggest that perhaps only the first group scrambled because it's a check against numbers, and once that group has scrambled planes then the numbers check is being "passed" such that there is no more scrambling. I think you should take your "failed sweep" results and change the Allied pilots to 80 XP and see what happens, mainly because only on just a couple of occasions over hundreds of sweeps have I had poor or even negative results with P-47D2's, P-47D25's, or P-51D's except for sometimes the first group of 25 (of which 22 will arrive together...) sweeping into a CAP of 100+. I suspect because of pilot quality. I agree on the numbers check. I also suspect that is exactly what is happening. Which may explain why I never see scrambling, since when I run CAP I run it hard and heavy - lots of it, and the units almost always at 80%. Sometimes I will drop to 70%, and seldom do I drop to 60 or 50. Never lower than 50.

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 9:15:40 PM)
Here is another of my fights. Fighters were set to 50% CAP, and this is the second battle of the day fighting from a damaged runway. The interesting thing here is the Allies sweeping at 10K, my patrol altitude is 7K and 9K, but the air controllers routed the CAP very high...which makes it seem to me that this was a climbing dogfight and the Airacobra, lacking superchargers, took it on the chin as we out climbed the Allies. Morning Air attack on Coal Harbour , at 204,49 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 11 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 3 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 14 A6M5 Zero x 8 Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 38 Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 20 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 24 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 1 destroyed Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 6 destroyed CAP engaged: Shoho-1/C with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 21000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes Kamikawa Maru-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 16000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes 33rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 7 scrambling) 14 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 24000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes 85th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling) 12 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 21000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes 203rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 4 scrambling) 10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 22000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes 12th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 1 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. 3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 18000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes 15th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 17345 and 25000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 10:28:12 PM)
So why no third CAP band here? You have 9k and 7k. Why no 5k?

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 10:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert So why no third CAP band here? You have 9k and 7k. Why no 5k? Just experimenting. I think the lowest CAP band helps lower the overall altitude the fight takes place at -- well this fight might have taken place across three different bands. Pretty neat. I wonder how exactly the dive bonus works. Could it be a boost to speed, which then in turn might effect maneuver?

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 10:50:44 PM)
Here is a later sweep, with the Airacobra's cooperating. The CAP is wearing out, but look at what altitude one squadron is sent to. Of course not many planes in it, but still. Also note the listing after CAP engaged is different. Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 5 A6M5 Zero x 2 Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 11 Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 9 Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 50 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 1 destroyed Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 3 destroyed Aircraft Attacking: 16 x P-39D Airacobra sweeping at 10000 feet * 21 x P-39D Airacobra sweeping at 10000 feet * CAP engaged: Kamikawa Maru-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 26000. Raid is overhead 33rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 26000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes 85th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 23630. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes 203rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling) Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 14000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes Shoho-1/C with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 6000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes 12th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 27000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes 15th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 25000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 10:57:58 PM)
Ok, figured it out. If there is only 1 plane responding it is sent to one altitude, if more than 1 plane is responding they are sent to a range of altitudes to intercept the sweep. You can see that quite clearly from this the last sweep against resistance for the day. Morning Air attack on Coal Harbour , at 204,49 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 1 Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 2 Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 1 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 25 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 1 destroyed No Allied losses Aircraft Attacking: 25 x P-40E Warhawk sweeping at 20000 feet CAP engaged: 33rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 22000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes 85th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 16000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes 15th Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 19000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes 203rd Sentai with Ki-43-IIb Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 19000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes

Lowpe -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 11:03:13 PM)
I think the low sweep is almost always a losing tactic. I have tried with Frank A, and they failed. Here the Airacobra's fail, even when they substantially outnumber the CAP. Has anyone ever gotten a low sweep to work well?

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/6/2016 11:52:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Since Jocke got his turn, I will post a complete summary of the Tojo fight referenced earlier. Note, we have an altitude cap of 20K, but looking at the altitudes we are scrambled too, the range of the fight well exceeds the altitude cap. Also, every unit scrambled. In addition is there any method for how the Fighter squadrons are listed? Yeah. No idea. You certainly had a lot of planes up early based on the scrambling of all groups. That probably is related not to this particular sweep but the accumulated strikes incoming as picked up by radar. So everybody got sent up knowing what was on the way. Also, as stated earlier by LoBaron maybe even years ago, during one of my difficulties with CAP behavior, the order of the animation and CR is not representative necessarily. Some of the combats may be seen to take place continuously. So if this one starts that doesn't mean it all happens before the next. It begins and then the next begins and adds to it, then the next adds on, etc. That is confusing since the animation can only show one package interacting with CAP at a time. There is some order of course, as we know what happens when bombers arrive first, but it's not always what we're seeing exactly. Actually....74 of his 120 planes scrambled. That would imply that they were not, in fact, up "early"... they were low and climbing, however. Presumably. As for order... they are definitely sequential. Yes, only one package is resolved at a time even though it may be abstracting the CAP interacting with various portions of what IRL would be one large raid, but the only way this can be done in a computer game is sequentially. Those that are resolved earlier in the combat report happen, for the purposes of the game (well, everything really), before all of the ones that come after it. This is why you see CAP get worn down through successive attacks, or more planes show up in later attacks when "leaky CAP" is being used. quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe I think the low sweep is almost always a losing tactic. I have tried with Frank A, and they failed. Here the Airacobra's fail, even when they substantially outnumber the CAP. Has anyone ever gotten a low sweep to work well? I've been on the receiving end of a couple that did not do terribly, but they didn't exactly win. I want to say it was Georges or Franks sweeping at 25K. It only really works when they're sweeping above the altitude of the CAP. They get trounced when there are, say, Corsairs on CAP at 36K. Or Thuds at 42...

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/7/2016 2:12:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna Actually....74 of his 120 planes scrambled. That would imply that they were not, in fact, up "early"... they were low and climbing, however. Presumably. Up early in this context is relating to the whole interaction during that phase. All those planes scrambled not just for the first group but for the whole series of sweeps arriving. quote: As for order... they are definitely sequential. Yes, only one package is resolved at a time even though it may be abstracting the CAP interacting with various portions of what IRL would be one large raid, but the only way this can be done in a computer game is sequentially. Those that are resolved earlier in the combat report happen, for the purposes of the game (well, everything really), before all of the ones that come after it. This is why you see CAP get worn down through successive attacks, or more planes show up in later attacks when "leaky CAP" is being used. It's hard to say "definitely" because we don't know definitely. I understand it's processed sequentially but we can't necessarily see which aircraft are directly interacting with others. So we don't know if some are in different altitude or areas of sky (if those exist) and how those planes are all connecting or missing each other. Exactly what you say with "abstracting the CAP" in terms of only letting aircraft that are in certain virtual proximity actually take a run at each other. If all of those planes are up they wear down through the successive interactions, use of ammo, mechanical problems, low fuel, getting hit and damaged, etc. They leave combat for sure, we just don't know "when/where" those things are happening even though it looks clearly sequential. A later sweep interacting with CAP may only be seeing a portion of it not because it's worn down, but because there is only one segment in that part of the sky, and that's all they see. It doesn't matter too much other than just saying it's not possible to understand or predict everything, and that no matter how much testing happens, there will e some mystery involved. [;)]

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/7/2016 4:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert If all of those planes are up they wear down through the successive interactions, use of ammo, mechanical problems, low fuel, getting hit and damaged, etc. They leave combat for sure, we just don't know "when/where" those things are happening even though it looks clearly sequential. A later sweep interacting with CAP may only be seeing a portion of it not because it's worn down, but because there is only one segment in that part of the sky, and that's all they see. It doesn't matter too much other than just saying it's not possible to understand or predict everything, and that no matter how much testing happens, there will e some mystery involved. [;)] I think if you pay close enough attention to the text in the report, which I treat almost as a debugger because it tells you exactly what is going on (at least for the information that it does give you), you can pick apart what is happening. It also helps to run extensive numbers of turns. I have seen sweeps not fully engage the CAP, but the numbers have still shown up in the animation and the report. What I mean by this is that I have seen a sweep of 25 planes attack the CAP at a base, which is shown as 21x Defending Plane, but combat is very short and not all 21 defenders are shot down or otherwise forced to disengage during the animation, and then the remaining sweepers trigger the "sweep animation" (where it shows them over an empty base). This is the only example that I've seen of the bolded part of the quote here. But I also have to point out that all planes in the hex that were still in the air and being accounted for in the text at the bottom (where it specifies number of planes in the air, standby, out of contact, etc.) were still reported in the combat report. I think it's fair to say that unless a dev pops in here saying that a combat animation B2 that occurs, say, 10 animations later than combat animation A1 could conceivably be abstracted to be taking place at the same time... yeah I'm just not going to believe that. They're sequential. The ones that happen first in the replay happen first. If a sweep comes in against a 50-plane CAP and knocks 15 of them out of the sky, then a strike comes in with escorts and there's a furball where the strike escorts knock down another 10, those 25 kills aren't abstracted between the two units. The sweep arrived and engaged the CAP first, even if it was just 10 "real life" seconds before the strike. It could also have been a few "real life" hours. You can verify this with unit kills as well. If you sweep a base with 2 units and the first unit shoots down all of the CAP, and the second unit meets empty skies, does the second unit ever get any kills because it's somehow abstracted to not be sequential? No. Likewise, do strikes that occur later in the sequence ever suffer planes shot down by CAP that is no longer present because it was engaged and depleted prior to the strike in question, in some kind of abstraction that it's just all one giant battle? Nope. I'm not trying to be combative or rude here, but there's no reason to insert uncertainty where there is none.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/7/2016 7:10:48 PM)
quote: I'm not trying to be combative or rude here, but there's no reason to insert uncertainty where there is none. There is a lot. [;)] I agree with your explanation of our perception of the replay. I also disagree that there is no "uncertainty," or in a more accurate word for me in this case, no "hidden" features in the design of aerial combat. Every time I run a test I see different results. Some of that is dice rolls. Some may be weather. Some may be something else we don't know is there. I'm interested in learning more about what is going on and to do that most effectively I have to understand there is a lot I don't know in order to be open to the possibilities I might be able to explore, regardless of my experience.

Lokasenna -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/8/2016 12:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: I'm not trying to be combative or rude here, but there's no reason to insert uncertainty where there is none. There is a lot. [;)] I agree with your explanation of our perception of the replay. I also disagree that there is no "uncertainty," or in a more accurate word for me in this case, no "hidden" features in the design of aerial combat. Every time I run a test I see different results. Some of that is dice rolls. Some may be weather. Some may be something else we don't know is there. I'm interested in learning more about what is going on and to do that most effectively I have to understand there is a lot I don't know in order to be open to the possibilities I might be able to explore, regardless of my experience. I'm merely pushing back against there being any idea of uncertainty in whether planes that are reported to be present in the numbers are actually there or not. They're either there (and therefore in the numbers), or they aren't. Whether they engage is another matter, but you can see this in the numbers shown for each unit and the other things the report tells you. Sure, there's uncertainty in trying to figure out aspects of the combat engine itself, but there is vanishingly little uncertainty in things like number of planes present for a particular combat, and even whether or not they scrambled or when they will do so (it seems fairly open and shut to me that it's based on numbers primarily, with maybe a leader check, but any possible leader check being unnecessary if the numbers condition isn't met first, etc.). To wit, the only uncertainty remaining in those things is down to minutiae (and comparing unit orders to the combat report tells you so much anyway!) and therefore pretty much irrelevant. I think I'm going to have to check out of here. Every time a test is run and different results are observed, of course it's dice rolls. We don't even know if the randoms being checked are simple or compounded, or what. Without even knowing the architecture it's impossible to guess and form guiding doctrines outside of the broad strokes.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/8/2016 4:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I think I'm going to have to check out of here. Every time a test is run and different results are observed, of course it's dice rolls. We don't even know if the randoms being checked are simple or compounded, or what. Without even knowing the architecture it's impossible to guess and form guiding doctrines outside of the broad strokes. That's it exactly! We don't know the architecture of how all of those planes do interact or what kinds of randoms are involved. So the tests for me are about understanding what I can understand. There is still a great amount of room for how players will interpret that stuff.

obvert -> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 (4/10/2016 1:50:25 AM)
Been spending time setting up a new test scenario the past few days. I realized that I'd done a few things that might keep animations from functioning correctly, including changing nationalities of airframes. I've got animations working now, and also the radar is working. While setting things up I realized the Type 3 IJN radar had a start date after the time of my first few tests. I began by re-running the low CAP with P-47D2 vs Ki-84r layered at 9k, 7k, 5k at 50% CAP with no rest at 0 range. This time it's even more lopsided to the Franks. Wow. Didn't expect that, but there are a few longer detection times here (although those doesn't seem to correlate to any of the loss numbers). While watching I did notice a few messages about the middle group climbing, and a lot of Franks diving. The combat began with only about 4-6 Franks engaging the 27 P-47s. They managed to hold them off until others joined. The number of Franks slowly grew throughout the battle until at the end at one point the total engaged was about 29-3. I wonder if the combat would end more quickly (and in favor of he P-47s) if the low layer were a more fragile airframe that couldn't stay in the battle? Both animations played out the same way, with the diving messages almost exclusively for Franks diving on P-47s. [image]local://upfiles/37283/3A625A6ABECE4426AB6954650DC4B3C1.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625