RE: What we need (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (10/30/2005 10:20:26 PM)

one of the books I am looking at, claims that once the universal wing became standard, the P-47 could carry two 150 gallon and one 75 gallon tank, this is the paddle blade model, P-47 D-20-RE (hmm, that is still one of the razor backs)

yea, a different book also states that the plane could carry two 150 gallon wing tanks and either a 75 gallon belly tank or a 500 pound bomb

(one that looks strange, the plane when it carried two 75 gallon wing tanks had a opp range of 340 miles, but when it carried a 108 gallon belly tank, it had a opp range of 375 miles (I am reading between the lines, on placements, as it states tanks and tank, so assumeing wing tanks and tank, so belly ?)

interesting fact, when loaded with full bomb load or fuel, the ammo load was lowered to around 267 rounds per gun)




otisabuser2 -> RE: What we need (11/1/2005 12:16:30 AM)

Hi all,

what about that message you get telling you unit "z" takes of from "y" with "x" number of Fw190d ? This tells the Offensive player far too much about the defences. ( forget the actual wording right now ).

Admittedly I am bad. I am one of many who jots all this stuff down. Bad side is that I know exactly where all the Defending fighter units are along with their strength and equipment.

The ideal, I suppose, would be to not even be able to see the Defending plot until it come in visual range of one of my attacking units. Rather boring though.

Another way of looking at this, would be to regard this information as legitimate intelligence gained. Then, as a trade off, I could loose 50% of my recon capacity ( either downsize the unit strengths or loose some squadrons ). It's only fair after all as the game is doing part of my recon for me [:D].

Less recon capacity may appeal to those who feel swamped by the depth of management in the game. May also free up some pilots in the database.

regards Otisabuser




Speedysteve -> RE: What we need (11/1/2005 12:34:25 AM)

Definitely OB i'm with you there.

I've mentioned this before in mails to HS etc.

I think that the Allied player should NOT be able to see this kind of stuff at level 3 messages. I had a thought whereby an intel page could be represented for the Allies whereby through radio intercepts, spies, ultra etc certain info would be presented to the Aliied commander on a daily basis.

E.G.

1/JG2 is currently based at Tille
Bussig NAG is currently producing 10 x Daimler Benz engines etc

That way the Allied player would get snippets of info through realistic intel channels but wouldn't have the god like view of the Axis world.

Regards,

Steven



von Shagmeister -> RE: What we need (11/1/2005 8:24:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Still got to disagree about chaseing a Recon plane, I still got to say, if I am at 25-30 K flying 350-380 mph, and your in a 109 G10/K4, Do 335, you are not going to catch me, I am going to be miles and miles away before you get anywhere close to my alt (and you are not going to be flying top speed to get to my alt)

now if we are co-alt, then you got a chance, and if it turns into a tail chase, you can out run me, but you should not be able to take off and run me down



I agree Sarge, the problem isn't having a/c with the performance to catch recce a/c but is with detecting them in the first place. At present in BTR the Axis radar network detects and tracks accurately all medium/high altitude raids irrespective of the number of a/c in the raid. Maybe the solution would be to limit the effectiveness of the radar network to detect single a/c, especially ones with a with a low radar cross section (predominantly wooden Mosquito for example).

There are many examples of recce a/c being shot down if they are detected and tracked but it's finding them in the first place.

My solution would be to give every a/c a radar cross section (signature) rating (ie Spitfire PR.XI = 1, B-17 = 4), a raid of 120xB-17 would have a "detection" figure of 480 where as a lone PR. Spit would have a "detection" figure of 1. I wander which raid would be easier for the Luftwaffe to detect and track. You have to remember that the radars in BTR are only simple pulse radars, there are none of the fancy new FMICW (pulse doppler) or pulse compression techniques to improve target definition and detection. They rely on the amount of energy returned from the target, big target - big return, little target - little return.

I think the whole of recce side of things need a good review. At present one recce sortie will photograph one site, in reality that one sortie might take photos of half a dozen or more sites, some of them quite a long distance apart geographically.

As others have mentioned some way to auto plot recce sorties, but I think this is dependent on having a more robust AI to act as an intelligent staff.

Regards

von Shagmeister




HMSWarspite -> RE: What we need (11/1/2005 8:44:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Still got to disagree about chaseing a Recon plane, I still got to say, if I am at 25-30 K flying 350-380 mph, and your in a 109 G10/K4, Do 335, you are not going to catch me, I am going to be miles and miles away before you get anywhere close to my alt (and you are not going to be flying top speed to get to my alt)

now if we are co-alt, then you got a chance, and if it turns into a tail chase, you can out run me, but you should not be able to take off and run me down



I agree Sarge, the problem isn't having a/c with the performance to catch recce a/c but is with detecting them in the first place. At present in BTR the Axis radar network detects and tracks accurately all medium/high altitude raids irrespective of the number of a/c in the raid. Maybe the solution would be to limit the effectiveness of the radar network to detect single a/c, especially ones with a with a low radar cross section (predominantly wooden Mosquito for example).

There are many examples of recce a/c being shot down if they are detected and tracked but it's finding them in the first place.

My solution would be to give every a/c a radar cross section (signature) rating (ie Spitfire PR.XI = 1, B-17 = 4), a raid of 120xB-17 would have a "detection" figure of 480 where as a lone PR. Spit would have a "detection" figure of 1. I wander which raid would be easier for the Luftwaffe to detect and track. You have to remember that the radars in BTR are only simple pulse radars, there are none of the fancy new FMICW (pulse doppler) or pulse compression techniques to improve target definition and detection. They rely on the amount of energy returned from the target, big target - big return, little target - little return.

I think the whole of recce side of things need a good review. At present one recce sortie will photograph one site, in reality that one sortie might take photos of half a dozen or more sites, some of them quite a long distance apart geographically.

As others have mentioned some way to auto plot recce sorties, but I think this is dependent on having a more robust AI to act as an intelligent staff.

Regards

von Shagmeister




That's a good idea. Another idea would be the reduction of straggler visibilty (removing the need to play with stragglers off). Once detected, raids should have to pass repeat checks to stay detected. Big raids as above would be easier, but lone PR, and stragglers would come and go. Thus, if you can see them, fair game, but mostly you wouldn't see them for long enough to intercept. This would make shadowing small raids important etc. Day raids would get a bonus for staying spotted from ground observers, but night raids would not. At present, raids are detected too reliably, and once detected, you can't lose them.

As for recce planning, maybe a quicker interface, where you just select (tic a box) on sites in each category, and it puts a mission to each one until out of a/c. Ideally with min/max alt filters, morale etc.

As for multiple recce, even being able to do primary and secondary targets automatically (depending on weather) would be good?



von Shagmeister -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 2:47:31 PM)

[/quote]

Another idea would be the reduction of straggler visibilty (removing the need to play with stragglers off). Once detected, raids should have to pass repeat checks to stay detected. Big raids as above would be easier, but lone PR, and stragglers would come and go. Thus, if you can see them, fair game, but mostly you wouldn't see them for long enough to intercept. This would make shadowing small raids important etc. Day raids would get a bonus for staying spotted from ground observers, but night raids would not. At present, raids are detected too reliably, and once detected, you can't lose them.

[/quote]

That's exactly what I was getting at, a check could be carried out for each target within the detection range of each radar (modified by target range, target size, transmitter power etc, etc). So it is possible that lone a/c (PR types, stragglers, etc) are detected but probably not on every sweep of the radar antenna, whist the big raids can be detected and tracked relatively easily.

von Shagmeister



Nikademus -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 4:53:31 PM)

an option for the Allied player to turn off plane graphics in favor of boxes would be nice too.....major clutter seeing all those planes even without stragglers.



Speedysteve -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 4:59:07 PM)

Can be done now bud.

During the CR. Click on the 6th button down. It will replace the plane graphics with boxes.



Nikademus -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 5:07:20 PM)

I looked for it and couldn't find it. It is available on the Luftwaffe side....saw that, but i couldn't find the same button with the PBEM Allied replay. ????




Nikademus -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 5:08:08 PM)

where's my turn Bomb-magnet?

Bomber Harris keeps ringing my office



Speedysteve -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 5:10:57 PM)

Not much time you know that.

Harris probably keeps ringing to say what sort of nut would launch 100 Jugs over 80 x HAA for no reason. He probably wants to be in charge



Nikademus -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 5:14:13 PM)

hey! it works in WitP dammit!!!!!

Those Jug pilots were insufficiently trained



Speedysteve -> RE: What we need (11/2/2005 5:15:50 PM)

Or prepared for your madness



Rainerle -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 1:58:01 PM)

Hi,
in BTR there were times where you had different planes in the same group (well, same plane but different armament variants) but this was not shown cause only one type of plane was given. Now it would be nice to break down the different types of armament variants (and Rüstsätze) that are present in one group. To go even further maybe mixing of different a/c in the same group (for late war german inorganization). Even further chrome in the form of captured equipment maybe? Did I mention that its a good idea to put in enough slots of everything from the beginning? Maybe extending the map to Norway ? The neutral swiss airforce which intercepts overfliers 5% of the time ? did I mention that you should put in enough slots for all the different types of planes, variants, Rüstsätze and desperate experimental ideas ?



Denniss -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 2:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
in BTR there were times where you had different planes in the same group (well, same plane but different armament variants) but this was not shown cause only one type of plane was given. Now it would be nice to break down the different types of armament variants (and Rüstsätze) that are present in one group. To go even further maybe mixing of different a/c in the same group (for late war german inorganization). Even further chrome in the form of captured equipment maybe? Did I mention that its a good idea to put in enough slots of everything from the beginning? Maybe extending the map to Norway ? The neutral swiss airforce which intercepts overfliers 5% of the time ? did I mention that you should put in enough slots for all the different types of planes, variants, Rüstsätze and desperate experimental ideas ?


Nice ideas but too much work needed to include this.



otisabuser2 -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 2:43:56 PM)

Hi Rainerle,

I like some of your ideas.

I agree that if there are all sorts of sub-variants of planes in the game, it would be nice to see them displayed, where appropriate.

More planes slots is something we would all like to have.

Map extension to Norway. Nice idea. Apart from shipping strikes etc, did the RAF or USAAF bomb Norway to any extent ? Bombing Sweden to stop iron ore be interesting, but change the game completly.

Keep the ideas coming !

regards Otisabuser



seydlitz_slith -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 2:54:01 PM)

Here are a couple of design items that I would like to see looked at:

1. The mouse routine--Ever notice after you have been playing a while how the mouse becomes imprecise, like something is affecting the driver. At times you have to fight the mouse pointer a bit to get exactly on the spot you want. I used to think that this was computer related, but I have had the game on three computers and four different mice, and the problem is still there.

2. Map scroll bars on the main map window when in the planning screen. How many times have you been trying to plan escorts but the screen decides it wants to scroll. With the mission planning tab open, sometimes it takes work to keep the mission plot in the center of the map.

3. Work on the weather/cloud routines.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 2:56:04 PM)

Hi Rain
well, to an extent, we do have this, the hassle is the unit page only shows what the default plane stats are

but this is more a, as planes are being upgraded, IE Allied FGs can have planes with 75 gallon drop tanks and 110 gallon drop tanks, the unit page will only show the 75, and once all have the 110, it will still show as only having the 75

the 110's are the same

yes, more plane slots and more pilot slots are a major need

I got some ideas for the unit pages, plane loadouts, have to see if we can do it, but over all I think we can do what I am thinking



Rainerle -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 3:13:42 PM)

Hmm,
important question: Is this supposed to be one (1940-1945) game or again two games ??



Speedysteve -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 3:42:05 PM)

Hi,

It's unlikely to be 1 big game. Likely to be 2 separate one's. Interesting idea though [8D]

Steven



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 3:44:52 PM)

if I follow the question right

the idea is to rerelease, BoB and BTR, updated and improved (what that all includes)

as a combined package

(there been ideas of trying to combine both games, but I think there is too much of a gap between BoB and the Start of BTR to make that a really doable idea, it would be nice ! but...)



[image]local://upfiles/1438/90C40F1449864F7387512FCE8E57A65A.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 3:47:04 PM)

and, with the idea of improving, and fixing the games, we got a lot of info and ideas built up over the years, JC was able to do wonders with the OOB, but now we can work with the Exe also, and that was always the drawback before



[image]local://upfiles/1438/3925C9211ED94C6FBB13E9B16E47AA0F.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 4:10:06 PM)

Which if you have been the BTR forums, that JC runs, you may see, we have many ideas



[image]local://upfiles/1438/252901E409D946C7838819A4BAA4635A.gif[/image]



Rainerle -> RE: What we need (11/3/2005 5:39:23 PM)

I agree the idea of one game while tempting is tricky since both players would need a planing action (using forces for offensive action) and real time action (using forces for defensive action). But well what a game that would be !



seydlitz_slith -> RE: What we need (11/7/2005 5:51:07 AM)

I have two more things to add to the list of items to look at:

1. In PBEM games the replay buffer size is not large enough. As a result, the allied player often loses all aircraft icons midway through the replay, and is left with only a map and messages that flash on the map.

2. OOB issue. British Mosquito units assigned to Light Night Strike Command should be listed with the bombers under bomber command, and not as intruders under the night fighter list. I can back up with documentation if needed.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (11/7/2005 2:47:07 PM)

the first is on my list already (in a little different form, but same idea)

the 2nd, we will have to ask JC what his reasons were



TheElf -> RE: What we need (11/7/2005 7:31:03 PM)

How about automating the Recon function with Doctrinal settings available to the player. How annoying is it to plan every pre-raid, post raid, and general fact finding/special interest Recon flight when it should be ASSUMED that you want a pre-raid and Post-raid recon flight?

Special interest recon flights could be manually planned of course, but also set by target type priority.

So, in short have a doctrine setting for recon.

1. Set the altitude, perhaps a direct or indirect routing option and perhaps the ability to set certain types of recon A/C to certain profiles, i.e low altitude recon or high altitude recon etc.

2. Ability to select certain groups/units to Auto recon, and then let the computer assign aircraft to recon as YOU create your raids.

3. Also left over recon units would still be available to the planner for use in special interest targets. There, done.






Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (11/7/2005 8:19:01 PM)

sounds good
I think we can at least get the set alt part in on the staff planning

for the rest, we have to see what they can do

Recon seems to be a big issue with a lot of players



Richrd -> RE: What we need (11/10/2005 4:38:29 AM)

Ok, here's mine. I'm going to harp on this until somebody notices. Fighters on sweeps use fuel at the cruise rate always. Fighters on intercept use fuel at the max speed rate when they close to within 50-100 miles of their target and therafter. This is a huge unfair advantage to the Allied player, giving his planes much greater endurance relative to his opponents.
Also night fighters Gruppes breaking up into 2 plane elements, each one of which must be redirected onto a target every TWO FREAKIN MINUTES. Thats enough for me.



DBS -> RE: What we need (11/14/2005 9:26:29 PM)

Following up on VS' and Sailor/Warspite's comments above, I have always argued that there was a BTR fault in that once a raid had been detected, the Germans continued to plot it infallibly, even if it was low-level and over the sea.

For example: plot a Mossie or Marauder raid at, say, 200 feet vs one of the targets on the coast of Jutland, coming in from a start-point on the north-east coast of England. So low-level all the way across the North Sea. Quite rightly, the Germans do not detect the inbound raid as it is below radar until it hits its target. The aircraft bomb, and scoot for home as every little FW and Me for miles around scrambles. Now, even though you have carefully put in a dogleg change of course on the return flight, say twenty miles off the coast, the German fighters still home in on the bombers (only the bombers' speed can save them, maybe outrunning the fighters before the latter hit bingo and have to turn homewards). How? The bombers are still below radar, and are now out over the North Sea. Must be a lot of German observers in the Danish fishing fleet...

In short, there does not seem to be a "break contact / lose plot" mechanism. Would be delighted to be proved wrong, but have seemed the above happen just about every time I have tried the tactic, which makes me very suspicious.

As regards the wider point about tracking singletons, heartily endorse the idea of reduced effectiveness. It is not just a question of radar performance, but also the philosophy of the German reporting chain - basically it was built to deal with big formations, whether day or night. Not really interested in tracking singletons, even if they could. It could be argued that the Himmelbet radar box system proves otherwise, but I would argue that that actually proves the point: when a night-bomber is in the small box, a German NJ tries to hunt it down with GCI, but if the bomber gets safely to the other side of the box, it can't be tracked effectively once again, and unless the NJ is eyes-on by that stage, it instead turns to hunting the next bomber to wander through the kill-box.

David



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125