Two things that seem too easy

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Two things that seem too easy

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Two things that seem too easy

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Two things that seem too easy - 6/12/2002 2:36:36 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

I don't know if the following are historically accurate, but they sure make it easy to conquer New Guinea.

1) there are several small bases just east of Lae. Each has a level 1 Airfield. This means you can airlift troops to them (as the Japanese) or take them with a small force (they start unnoccupied) and then rapidly reinforce by air (as the Australians). And you can resupply by air.

In the "starting in May/no Midway" scenario I could use these (because they had Airfields to start with) to move the entire 7th Australian division, fairly well supplied, through them to take Lae by about July 15th.

Had there been no Airfields there and had I needed to construct some to reinforce and supply I would have moved enormously slower.

Are you sure this is a good design decision? I would recommend level Zero Airfields out there.

2) Bombers can fly supplies and gain experience rapidly by flying supplies. I can see they might gain supply-flying-experience but why do they become expert at skip bombing while flying cans of beans around? Some of these bombers were just flying back and forth between two bases in Australia. Others supplied the Australian-push-on-Lae described above, freeing my C-47s to do all the troop moving.

Again this may be 'realistic' but I can gain an enormous edge by doing this. The medium bombers were so experienced (all of them 80+ experience) that the IJN had no chance trying to reinforce or resupply Lae (making it's downfall even more assured).

If you are going to let bombers fly supply missions, you might not want to give them experience for doing supply runs.

(You can say "Just don't do that" but we are wargamers. We look for little gimmicks that give us an edge).

Post #: 1

- 6/12/2002 2:47:45 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

Oops. I meant "just west of Lae" (I am at work and haven't got the names of the bases handy)

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 2

- 6/12/2002 4:22:22 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

I second this. There are a number of exploits which are making hestitate to start a PBEM game and this is one of them.

As pilot (albeit inactive) it seems to me that the you gain pretty minimal experience making supply runs. 2 landings, 2 take offs, cross-country navigation to a location which is known. All the stuff that you learned in the AAF or Navy in basic or primary flight training. In contrast if you are engaged in training operations, you are practicing bombing, formation flying, possibly aerial gunnery, and learning new skills like skip bombing.

I know that the present day Air Force has complained that patroling the new fly zone in Iraq, despite it being a semi-combat environment, is hurting their skills cause they aren't doing any more varied training.

In "Fire in the Sky" there is a large section devoted to the differences in training between US and Japanese pilots, one of the factors was that US generally did training after pilots arrive in theater. I think the game should make training as the best way of gaining experience other than actual combat.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 3

- 6/12/2002 5:49:12 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I too am a wargamer.

I am aware that people need training before they are any good at anything.

But as a wargamer I don�t want to arrange the training schedules. I really don�t want to do that. Really - really don�t want to do that.

So if a bomber crew gains bombing experience whilst delivering cans of food, then that is an abstraction I can live with.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 4

- 6/12/2002 6:04:14 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

Well Joe, I understand that. (actually there are other things that wish were abstracts, which is why I leave subs on computer control.)

However, I like the idea of training missions because it force you as the theatre commander to make a trade-off.

Do I throw the new units into combat, knowing they'll take heavy losses or do I give them a couple of weeks more training increasing their survivability.

The problem with using the supply mission is it doesn't force you to make the trade off. Forward bases always need more supplies and a medium bomber is about 1/3 as good as C47. So you can kill 2 birds, you can increase the experience of your bombers and get valuable supplies being delivered.

Given the way the game system works training missions are useless now for bombers. You are much better off using supply missions to train your pilots. In real life this wasn't true.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 5

- 6/12/2002 6:11:35 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

Not only do the bombers give useful service while moving those supplies, they seem to train much better (get higher experience faster) while moving supplies than while training.

To Matrix:

Do the supply missions fly regardless of weather? Always use all the pilots? Not generate as much fatigue as training?

Are those factors why they work better? (Too well in my opinion)

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 6

- 6/12/2002 6:13:21 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

The point about the trade off is an excellent point.

It is the gut wrenching decisions that make wargaming great.

I noticed that Training is an option the first time I saw the game.

But it is not clear to me, given any squadron, whether a crew needs further training or not.

In other words, where can I locate their level of proficiency?

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 7

- 6/12/2002 6:19:34 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

All air units are judged on the three things. Experience, Morale, and Fatigue. The first two are display when you select the units, fatigue is only shown when you look at the Pilots (corrected I believe in the patch)

Experience is increased through combat missions (quickly) and training missions (slowly) but it seems that supply missions also increase experience very rapidly. A bug IMHO.

I have noticed a big difference in effectivness between a raw experience 50-55 unit and a level 70 unit. The Japanese squadrons with experience 80+ are really fearsome.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 8

Only an exploit if you make it one. - 6/12/2002 9:01:05 AM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

Keep in mind that a human player won't just let you walk up the Kokoda Trail in the first place, and what exactly will you do when all those Zeros and Oscars on LRCAP over your newly captured airfield start shooting down your transports?

There's a counter for everything in this game. :)

As far as experience goes, I'm pretty sure that it's gained at two rates; one for training, and another for duty missions. It's quite possible that changing the system may be difficult.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 9

- 6/12/2002 9:26:26 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]As far as experience goes, I'm pretty sure that it's gained at two rates; one for training, and another for duty missions. It's quite possible that changing the system may be difficult.[/QUOTE]

You may be right but unfortunately, it appears that flying supply gains experience quicker than training rates. I had two bomber groups and the supply one seemed to gain experience faster than the one set on 90% training. Morale on the supply group did drop quickly and I let it rest for 3 days to lower fatigue and raise morale before using it for combat but....

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 10

- 6/12/2002 9:30:37 AM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B]

You may be right but unfortunately, it appears that flying supply gains experience quicker than training rates. I had two bomber groups and the supply one seemed to gain experience faster than the one set on 90% training. Morale on the supply group did drop quickly and I let it rest for 3 days to lower fatigue and raise morale before using it for combat but.... [/B][/QUOTE]

That's precisely why I believe there are only to rates at which experience is gained. One is training and everything else is lumped into the other category. :)

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 11

- 6/12/2002 10:15:42 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

For those of you that have quickly conquered NG I have a question. Have you been able to keep all those bases in supply for the long haul? I am on day 320 of a PBEM game and I could not so I had to retreat. Sure you might be able to fly in supplies for a little while but sooner or later you will need those bombers for what they were intended for. To supply the bases by land you will need one hell of a stockpile at PM. This will require a major effort with sea transport and a long term commitment of those resources.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 12

Oh - 6/12/2002 10:20:02 AM

Rob Roberson

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline

I will have to echo kid's statement. In my AAR I foolishly (boldly LOL) let my transports get hammered early in game and have had a hell of a time keeping the supplies up at Gili and PM. It has effected ALL of my operations. It was a first game lesson that i have not forgotten.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 13

- 6/12/2002 5:02:44 PM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello...

Bombers flying supply runs, as opposed to training or naval search, do gain experience pretty quickly. They fly in all weather, fly long flights, fly without escort into contested air space, frequently landing on really bad airfields and all pilots fly every mission. This produces significantly higher operational losses and fatigues the pilots quickly. But, they get a lot more flying hours than aircraft on training or naval search missions.

Hope this clarifies...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
[B...Do the supply missions fly regardless of weather? Always use all the pilots? Not generate as much fatigue as training?
Are those factors why they work better? (Too well in my opinion) [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 14

"Hope this clarifies..." - 6/12/2002 7:07:37 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

It does, as usual. Much appreciated. :)

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 15

Re: Only an exploit if you make it one. - 6/12/2002 7:35:47 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B].......
As far as experience goes, I'm pretty sure that it's gained at two rates; one for training, and another for duty missions. It's quite possible that changing the system may be difficult. [/B][/QUOTE]

The computer knows it is a transport mission and knows that it is not a transport plane so it should not be too difficult to disallow experience for bomber transport runs.:)

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 16

- 6/12/2002 10:44:07 PM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

In response to a couple of points above:

-> "Can you continue to supply bases by air?"

I am not supplying that chain of bases I came through (the small bases west of Lae) but only the last base, now Lae itself. I am only a few turns after taking Lae. The supplies at Lae are still going up, not down. I don't have much there and it is inactive (most of 7th Aus Div and 1 engineer I just flew in). I have no air units there because the airfield was 94% damaged when I took the place.

I have _lots_ of bombers to fly supply since I have relatively few bases far enough forward to hit Rabaul (only PM and for B17s Cooktown). So all those Medium bombers I can't stuff into PM (and which are assigned to SWPAC) are flying supplies.

Eventually (when the airfield is functional) I will move twin engine bombers to Lae and will then need more supplies. But already with PM mine, lots of Med Bombers with 85+ experience and with no IJN airbase south of Rabaul the IJN can't send ships into the seas just North of New Guinea and the airbase at Rabaul itself is starting to be hurt. (By the time I do that, with Lae a working "Twin-engine-bomber-anti-shipping" airfield and PM a "Anti-Rabual-Airbase" airfield I doubt there will be any problem moving supplies to Lae but we'll see.

And in any case the IJN are not using Lae. It was taken easily and with a relatively small commitment of resources. (The Japanese couldn't reinforce or resupply Lae because all those Experience 80+ bombers sank all the transports that tried. The two problems: too easy to get all your bombers up over 80 experience and too easy to air supply the drive on Lae each make the other problem more extreme).

-> "A human opponent would contest that string of empty airbases west of Lae"

Yes, a human would. But my suggestion was to remove the level one airbase from those bases anyhow. Then you couldn't rush a constantly growing (reinforced by air) force through that bit of jungle. I doubt it could have been done that easily or that there were airfields sitting there empty for the first side to use them. And even if there were airfields out there in the jungle, having them in the game seems to "warp" strategy towards running air-supplied columns through the jungle. (If Matrix regards this as OK or as low priority players might still want to use the editor to make those level zero Airfields).

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 17

- 6/13/2002 4:52:56 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

Well Mike I understand the rational. I just think it is dead wrong.

WWII pilot training was divided into 3 phases basic, primary, and advanced. Navigation, night flying, landing on short runways would all be completed in primary training. Advanced training would consist of bombing runs, aerial gunnery, and formation flying. Those are the skills the determine how effective a bomber crew would be at surviving over the target and more importantly putting the bombs on the target. None of those skills would be sharpened by flying supply runs.

Getting a WWII bomber to a location was not a particularly difficult feat, dropping the bombs within a 100' of the target was the challenge.

I think the question to ask yourself if running supply missions is such a great way of training pilots how come the commanders in the South Pacific didn't do it? (Except for the unauthorized supply runs of shipping beer and booze !) Instead they gave the pilots special training in things like skip bombing.

In patch 1.02 I really hope you guys re-look at this.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 18

- 6/13/2002 6:06:25 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

I just wanted to mention the downside of using bombers to fly supplies, especially to small airfields. It is the VP cost of operational losses. It may very well be worth the cost, but I assume you are losing planes regularly as they fly those missions. Of course, if you're seeing a big experience gain (that rightfully shouldn't be there) then you may be getting an extra benefit that outweighs the cost. Keep in mind that operational losses are related to airfield size and distance to target (with some modification due to aircraft range), so flying medium bombers to the limits of their range on supply missions, especially to level 1 airfields, should cost you some planes and VP's.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 19

Operational losses - 6/13/2002 6:55:24 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Are bomber aircraft being lost on supply runs to these small airfields? Are they being replaced? The group exp will continue to rise as you kill all the low exp pilots (but the group is not really getting better. Once it goes to rest and rebuild all the new pilots will lower the exp back down again. Please what are your operational losses per day?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 20

- 6/13/2002 7:59:34 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

In response to Mogami's questions:

Remember I also boosted experience NOT solely flying to tiny AFs but flying from one base in Australia to another. (I know, why do that? See at the end of this post).

By August 9th '42 (scenario started in May) I am no longer flying to level 1 AFs but I do have some Hudsons flying to Buna (level 2 AF). The Hudsons took no losses this turn. Total losses to date for Hudsons are 25 (some from combat, some from being bombed sitting on the runway). I do occasionally get a message someone was killed in a supply run. I don't recall how long this have been flying supplies (Cairns to Buna). Perhaps a couple of weeks?

The Exp/Fat/Mis for the pilots in this group are:
94/32/124
85/51/48
80/55/39
85/47/65/
83/47/36
81/52/15
80/56/19
80/47/19
77/55/7
78/54/58
86/30/68
88/50/127
87/58/72
96/52/55

Average Exp 83
Average Fatigue 49.

For another group (A20s that did fly supplies for a while, and are now in PM on Anti shipping missions):

98/30/82
99/30/82
99/0/77
98/25/86
97/28/81
99/28/82
99/23/84
98/33/82
96/14/72
96/23/47
89/0/30
90/24/44
84/20/25
57/0/0 <- This guy apparently replaced some recently deceased pilot
97/0/78
95/31/84

Average 92 Exp and 19 Fatigue.
11 of 16 Pilots 90+
7 of 16 Pilots 98 or 99

Total A20 losses to date: 8 (EIGHT PLANES to get that ludicrous squadron experience).

So it doen't look like the gain in experience is just due to killing off the inept pilots.

In response to Joel Billings:

Whatever the VP loss is for the operational losses one took to get all these bomber groups with 80+ and 90+ experience (and it wasn't much) is made up for in the damage one gets using such aircrews against enemy shipping. As noted above my total losses in A20s from all causes is only 8 AC.

Why do I do this if it is an unrealistic advantage? Well, at this point I am still learning the game system and seeing what works and what doesn't. Against the AI I could just choose to not make supply runs so aggressively but against a human player there is no way as the Japanese Player for example that I could tell if he is running lots of supply runs between Brisbane and Rockhampton to get all his bombers up over 90 exp. He is a wargamer. He is sure to be doing all he can to optimize his strengths. So I had better learn if this is a problem before commiting to a 3 month email campaign game with someone.

Me, I think as a quick fix giving no experience for non combat missions would be better than having everyone run around with Exp 92 Squadrons. (So the C-47s never get really high experience and take higher operational losses. That will be less of a problem IMO.)

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 21

- 6/13/2002 9:52:13 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

My situation is similar to Diealtkoeing. My base Irau already had 250 planes on it, I was running short of transport ships, since my invasion of PM took longer than expected and I already was short of shipping thanks to losses. Lungaville was running short of supplies and but still need to send air supplies to Irau. So rather than transfer all my C47 back from Lungaville to Noumea. I thought lets see how my B26 on training missions do sending supplies.

Well I was really shocked to see them gain more experience than a training mission. Also this was case of flying between two level 9 airfields so operational losses were minimal since I generally stand down most planes during a thunderstorm..

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 22