RE: The tojo as uber.....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The tojo as uber.....

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: The tojo as uber.....

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 3:57:09 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I am going to Florida....

Well then, it must be true that one plus one is greater than two!!!

Does that mean you'll buy my airline ticket?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 151

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 4:02:54 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.

So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...

Seems a bit presumptuous on your part, Mike, that this is the reason the code was not changed. Do you have any idea what amount of work might have been involved in changing this code? Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it.

That's all right USS America, I am quite used to Mike's pointing out flaws without offering any constructive solutions...

And as along standing Beta tester and member of the AE team the fact that this issue wasn't addressed prior to release is as much his fault as it was anyone else's. Fortunately, now that the development phase is over Mike still has the public forum with which he can throw spears at the designers while the community gets to sit back and watch....

The thing is, most of this is based off one or two instances, if it happens every time then it is an issue. And as I posted earlier in the thread, any Early War Japanese advantage completely evaporates in 1943-1944...the shoe goes on the other foot, so to speak. I think a lot of the complaints are much to do about nothing.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 152

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 4:52:06 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Bounce implies surprise. Use your imagination as to how many different ways you can surprise your opponent, and it doesn't have to be with an altitude or energy advantage. There are varying degrees of bounces.

That said, Having an altitude advantage does increase the likelihood of a bounce occurring, as the most favorable potion to achieve a bounce is from above and unobserved.

Altitude advantage is a separate bonus that essentially modifies MVR values for at least the first round of combat and in some cases more, depending on Pilot EXP and several rolls. This advantage can be prolonged or fumbled, but in cases where it works in concert with a BOUNCE it can be extremely deadly. This concept is not unprecedented in history.

Believe I said that, Elf. But if "bounce" implies "surprise", and the side gaining the "bounce" is at a higher altitude, shouldn't they be coming down to take advantage of the "surprise". It still makes no sense for the side being "surprised" to have to climb to meet the attacker when they don't know the attacker is there (they're being surprised, right?).

If you spot the enemy, and he doesn't see you, you close in to take advantage of it don't you? If he's above you, you try to come up from below and behind to keep him from spotting you until you are in position to attack; and if you are above him you try to put yourself between your target and the sun and dive on him. When the side with the altitude advantage starts the combat, shouldn't it take place at the altitude of the defender? Why should he get the advantage of having the combat take place at his chosen altitude instead of that of the A/C he's attacking by diving on them?

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 153

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 5:52:45 PM

ChickenOfTheSea

Posts: 579
Joined: 6/7/2008
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

quote:

I have had occasions when I had fighters designated to escort bombers to a certain location. When the fighters show up, but the bombers don't, the raid is described as a sweep in the report. My guess is that the same code that intercepts bombers is handling sweeps, but I certainly have no direct knowledge.

< Message edited by ChickenOfTheSea -- 3/8/2010 5:54:15 PM >

_____________________________

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. - Manfred Eigen

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 154

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 6:38:34 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 155

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 6:53:25 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

Perhaps there needs to be a RNG roll in there to determine if the CAP goes up or not then? Make it so there is a 50/50 chance of climbing or not?

If the roll fails and they don't climb and the attacker doesn't dive, then you simply give a message of CAP unable to intercept, or Attacker unable to locate targets, etc.

< Message edited by Shark7 -- 3/8/2010 6:54:17 PM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 156

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/8/2010 6:56:01 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Going all the way back to the original BoB? - I wonder if the original intent was simulate a 'bouncing' attacker regaining height? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the intent would have been.

Perhaps it could be put on the patch list to have air combat take place at the defender's altitude?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 157

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/10/2010 11:53:57 PM

vonTirpitz

Posts: 511
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Wilmington, NC
Status: offline

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

Just a supposition on my part.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Going all the way back to the original BoB? - I wonder if the original intent was simulate a 'bouncing' attacker regaining height? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the intent would have been.

Perhaps it could be put on the patch list to have air combat take place at the defender's altitude?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 158

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/11/2010 12:57:01 AM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

A sensible guess..., and if the CAP were getting "the bounce" (surprising the "sweep") it would also make sense. Oddness arises when the CAP climbs to meet an incoming "sweep" that has "the bounce". How can it know to climb up there if it's being "surprised" and doesn't know the enemy is coming?

(in reply to vonTirpitz)

Post #: 159

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/11/2010 5:29:45 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

A sensible guess..., and if the CAP were getting "the bounce" (surprising the "sweep") it would also make sense. Oddness arises when the CAP climbs to meet an incoming "sweep" that has "the bounce". How can it know to climb up there if it's being "surprised" and doesn't know the enemy is coming?

because like much of the combat resolution in this engine an awful lot gets abstracted...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 160

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/11/2010 4:51:04 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

A sensible guess..., and if the CAP were getting "the bounce" (surprising the "sweep") it would also make sense. Oddness arises when the CAP climbs to meet an incoming "sweep" that has "the bounce". How can it know to climb up there if it's being "surprised" and doesn't know the enemy is coming?

Bad directions from ground controllers, lack of situational awareness, navigational problems....many types of variables can affect things.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 161

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/24/2010 7:20:43 PM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
I guess it�s not a question of playing fair and noone accuses you about playing unfair. The game shouldn�t make it impossible for you to play "unfair" but to have unreasonable results (which I admit seems to be a pretty hard - if possible at all - task). And Tojos mauling P-40 at 20:1 when the Tojos even are outnumbered is off. But hey, that�s surely just one of those "one out of one thousand" off results.

I think I gonna try to repeat those results. Maybe some day I will make it. I was really astonished when I saw it, because it's really a single result. Previous duels in Burma was rather at 1:1 odds.
But still, there were many factors at play this time. All favoured my side.
Tojos were not outnumbered. Look at the report: 38 to 30 airborne Allied fighters. Clear sky. 15 000 feet difference. Air ratings, less fatigue (the hex CAPped was 2 hexes away from D.Waters) etc...

Well you should repeat it. I know I would if I had those fricking tojos......

I fly the P40s at 14,000 feet because that is where they are supposed to be and the optimun performance envelope for that plane.
That is where it should fight the best but it does not. Oscars diving from 30,000 feet would have no advantage as the P 40s could evade and dive away at anytime. That is, from those oscars that were still diving and had not shed their wings.

Tojo is obviously another example as it probably could hold a dive but the real point is that air combat should take place at realistic altitude's for the planes involved, and any fighter at 30,000 feet was just barely responsive to the controls and unable to maneuver much. I think there are some simple solutions but for now, it is a game and you should do what works best.

Btw, you were fighting my top pilots with many aces and a few multiple aces. My planes were rested and only flying two hexes. The survivors are not highly fatiqued.

ANY plane with an altitude advantage will ALWAYs have the advantage. Those Oscars will not be diving all the way from 30,000 to 14,000 ft, but go into a decent that will allow them to boom and zoom the P-40s. The P-40 next option is to dive away as you say, but IRL, the killed pilot almost NEVER saw the plane that killed him, so there could be heavy loses from the first pass. After that the P-40s should be able to get away by diving and using speed. With all that said about how it would really be, I thought the A2A model took into account a pilots exp level to determine IF he tried to fly his plane in a manner not optimal to it's design or the situation, in other words a fairly inexperienced P-40 pilot may NOT dive away, but try and turn fight with an Oscar. Also, in a real dogfight, the altitude will almost always start to drop lower and lower and the planes dive away, split S and so on....thus I would think no matter what altitude is set at the start, it would slowly drop as the fight continues until one side or the other breaks contact.

< Message edited by Zemke_4 -- 3/24/2010 7:21:21 PM >

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 162

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/24/2010 11:31:27 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Spending most of my time with my wife and son playing "Age of Mythology" (she likes that game) and "Combat Mission: North Africa"...I'm a sucker for tank battles in the desert....

Lord, I still love Combat Mission. I never could figure out why they never came out with a CMII. It is such a great game and sold well. I don't much care for modern warfare stuff. Just do another WWII game.

Crikies!, I just hijacked my own thread.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 163

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/25/2010 9:55:48 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Spending most of my time with my wife and son playing "Age of Mythology" (she likes that game) and "Combat Mission: North Africa"...I'm a sucker for tank battles in the desert....

Lord, I still love Combat Mission. I never could figure out why they never came out with a CMII. It is such a great game and sold well. I don't much care for modern warfare stuff. Just do another WWII game.

Crikies!, I just hijacked my own thread.....

Should I bring in back on topic?

Last fighter sweep in my PBEM vs Rainer saw two Lightning squadrons SWEEPING vs. 30 Tojos and a handful Oscars with the result of 16 Lightnings shot down for 2 Tojos. 8:1 confirmed kill rate. Oh, 3 Oscars were shot down also, the Oscars couldn�t do any damage. The two Lightning squadrons had the best USAAF on the map in 8/42 and I have don full training on the whole map since 12/7/42. Glad my opponent only will produce some 100 Tojos a month, still enough to take down probably 500 of my fighters - which I don�t get.

Send your 50 best Allied fighters with the best pilots on a sweep vs. for sure excellent pilots in 30 Tojos and you lose 16 Lightnings. Send 50 B-17 against 30 Tojos and you will shoot down 3 for the loss of 1-2 B-17. Ergo, the "bombers get always through theory" is obviously true. I�ve learned something long ago in my PBEM, your better off using heavy bombers unescorted than medium bombers with escorts as the heavy bombers are more or less immune to everything (and they get more immune with their crews getting better of course) but your fighters and the medium bombers will be shot to pieces. Combine this with a Japanese PBEM player that a) isn�t too lazy to do onmap training, which means he will have the same pilot quality as the Allied and b) he will produce more first line aircraft (let�s say fighters as the bombers aren�t that good) than you for sure. The only bright side is that the IJNAF won�t get any better aircraft than the Zero until late 43 but the IJAAF starts off with the Tojo in mid 42 already and the Tojo alone is enough of a match for your figthers until masses of P-47 or Corsairs arrive. There�s nothing better on the map than my Lightnings but the stats of the Tojo and the dive they got resulted in 8:1. And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example.

Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 31 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 36

Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 22

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38E Lightning: 4 destroyed

CAP engaged:
24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 22 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500 , scrambling fighters to 36740.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 45,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 2
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 30

Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38E Lightning: 3 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x P-38E Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet

CAP engaged:
24th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (9 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes

an aircraft like the Tojo and the ongoing dive results in uber kill rates. But hey, only a monthly replacement lost. Next try in another month, perhaps we will then shoot down the next two Tojos.

Well done. Can be reversed for sure, ongoing dive for the Lightnings would probably result in the 8:1 reversed or at least it would be better for the Lightnings.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/25/2010 10:00:16 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 164

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/25/2010 1:22:07 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Ban sweeps until fixed I guess?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 165

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/25/2010 1:29:17 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Ban sweeps until fixed I guess?

it�s neither the sweep nor the Cap IMO, it�s the "dive". It was the bounce in WITP that could make a 5:1 a 1:3 and the "dive" in AE is as powerful. Now the "dive" or "bounce" surely should be powerful, the problem are those never ending dive or bounce phases. With the strike pack feature this has been even made worse as in the combat posted above for example, my two squadrons coming from the same base, going to the same target, they came in separated of course and BOTH times saw the Tojo dive party, resulting in those absolutely great result. Don�t mind my sarcasm...

the bounce had it�s wording changed into dive. Bounce - fire from behind - kill... dive - fire from behind - kill... fire at - miss... fire at - miss... fire at - damaged... fire at - miss... fire at - damaged... fire at - miss... fire at - kil... dive - fire from behind - damaged... dive - fire from behind - kill... dive - fire from behind - kill...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/25/2010 1:32:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 166

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/25/2010 5:16:07 PM

Ikazuchi0585

Posts: 108
Joined: 1/25/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

"And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example."
so just because Zeros can shoot P-40s out of the sky, the P-38 should always shoot Tojo's out of the sky?? If you're implying that the Zero has a turkey shoot every time it comes against the P-40... that simply isnt the case, even comming in at an higher altitude. yes Zero's can still get show down sweeping at 15-17k while my opponent is flying at 10k.

I see what the problem is. if you do it to a IJ player nothing is wrong. but when it happens to you.. now something is broken.
thats why this tread was started and that's why the other thread on the A2a model was started. It's never an issuse if you decimate your opponent. How often in the forums do you see and IJ player post allied this is uber... allied that is uber?

why is it so bad if your opponent gets uber kill rates if thats all you're trying to accomplish with stratosweeps anyways?

I see no problem with sweeps... then again i dont do that gamey strato altitude game-bs
your p-38s pilots realizing 45k doesnt produce optimum performance, probably went to an lower altitude

_____________________________

the three most common expressions (or famous last words) in aviation are: "why is it doing that?", "where are we?" and "oh s--t!!!!"

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 167

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/25/2010 5:39:34 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example."
so just because Zeros can shoot P-40s out of the sky, the P-38 should always shoot Tojo's out of the sky?? If you're implying that the Zero has a turkey shoot every time it comes against the P-40... that simply isnt the case, even comming in at an higher altitude. yes Zero's can still get show down sweeping at 15-17k while my opponent is flying at 10k.

I see what the problem is. if you do it to a IJ player nothing is wrong. but when it happens to you.. now something is broken.
thats why this tread was started and that's why the other thread on the A2a model was started. It's never an issuse if you decimate your opponent. How often in the forums do you see and IJ player post allied this is uber... allied that is uber?

why is it so bad if your opponent gets uber kill rates if thats all you're trying to accomplish with stratosweeps anyways?

I see no problem with sweeps... then again i dont do that gamey strato altitude game-bs
your p-38s pilots realizing 45k doesnt produce optimum performance, probably went to an lower altitude

TBH, against the AI, I've lost more Zero's to P-40s than the other way around, and I am using high altitude sweeps. Against P-40s and Buffalo's in Burma my Oscars are not donig nearly as well even making high altitude sweeps. I'm suffering 3:1 losses there.

Everyone has different results it seems.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Ikazuchi0585)

Post #: 168

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/26/2010 12:20:35 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example."
so just because Zeros can shoot P-40s out of the sky, the P-38 should always shoot Tojo's out of the sky?? If you're implying that the Zero has a turkey shoot every time it comes against the P-40... that simply isnt the case, even comming in at an higher altitude. yes Zero's can still get show down sweeping at 15-17k while my opponent is flying at 10k.

I see what the problem is. if you do it to a IJ player nothing is wrong. but when it happens to you.. now something is broken.
thats why this tread was started and that's why the other thread on the A2a model was started. It's never an issuse if you decimate your opponent. How often in the forums do you see and IJ player post allied this is uber... allied that is uber?

why is it so bad if your opponent gets uber kill rates if thats all you're trying to accomplish with stratosweeps anyways?

I see no problem with sweeps... then again i dont do that gamey strato altitude game-bs
your p-38s pilots realizing 45k doesnt produce optimum performance, probably went to an lower altitude

TBH, against the AI, I've lost more Zero's to P-40s than the other way around, and I am using high altitude sweeps. Against P-40s and Buffalo's in Burma my Oscars are not donig nearly as well even making high altitude sweeps. I'm suffering 3:1 losses there.

Everyone has different results it seems.

Similar here. Last three turns of PBEM, had two turns with Zeros sweeping at 30k (36 a/c at first sweep with mostly 70's pilots with about 40% 60's and a few 50's). Opposed by mixture of Wildcats, P38s and P40's. Usually about 5-8 a/c initally oppose the sweep with more coming up as the fights progress. Total losses : 17 Zeros versus 3 Wildcats, 3 P38s and 1 P40. Tried a sweep with Oscars in between the Zero sweeps and lost 4 Oscars to no Allied losses. What seems to happen (at least with the Zeros) is there is a first pass that gets a couple of Allies and then more Allies join the fight which swirls around with a poor exchange rate for the Japanese.

This has been my experience the entire game; sometimes I will get 3:2 or even 2:1 but usually the sweeps result in unfavorable exchange rates

< Message edited by pompack -- 3/26/2010 12:29:04 AM >

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 169

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/26/2010 8:31:40 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example."
so just because Zeros can shoot P-40s out of the sky, the P-38 should always shoot Tojo's out of the sky?? If you're implying that the Zero has a turkey shoot every time it comes against the P-40... that simply isnt the case, even comming in at an higher altitude. yes Zero's can still get show down sweeping at 15-17k while my opponent is flying at 10k.

I see what the problem is. if you do it to a IJ player nothing is wrong. but when it happens to you.. now something is broken.
thats why this tread was started and that's why the other thread on the A2a model was started. It's never an issuse if you decimate your opponent. How often in the forums do you see and IJ player post allied this is uber... allied that is uber?

why is it so bad if your opponent gets uber kill rates if thats all you're trying to accomplish with stratosweeps anyways?

I see no problem with sweeps... then again i dont do that gamey strato altitude game-bs
your p-38s pilots realizing 45k doesnt produce optimum performance, probably went to an lower altitude

why should it be right if you do it to a Japanese player? I hope you won�t assume I would be an AFB? Guess you don�t know me, I would myself call me a JFB.

And if you have ever looked at the stats in the game you would know that the P-38 can�t reach 45.000ft, that�s a wrong detection.

ANY uber kill rate is off. No matter for which side. There�s still this last bit of realism you should look at.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/26/2010 8:34:36 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ikazuchi0585)

Post #: 170

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/26/2010 8:33:47 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example."
so just because Zeros can shoot P-40s out of the sky, the P-38 should always shoot Tojo's out of the sky?? If you're implying that the Zero has a turkey shoot every time it comes against the P-40... that simply isnt the case, even comming in at an higher altitude. yes Zero's can still get show down sweeping at 15-17k while my opponent is flying at 10k.

I see what the problem is. if you do it to a IJ player nothing is wrong. but when it happens to you.. now something is broken.
thats why this tread was started and that's why the other thread on the A2a model was started. It's never an issuse if you decimate your opponent. How often in the forums do you see and IJ player post allied this is uber... allied that is uber?

why is it so bad if your opponent gets uber kill rates if thats all you're trying to accomplish with stratosweeps anyways?

I see no problem with sweeps... then again i dont do that gamey strato altitude game-bs
your p-38s pilots realizing 45k doesnt produce optimum performance, probably went to an lower altitude

TBH, against the AI, I've lost more Zero's to P-40s than the other way around, and I am using high altitude sweeps. Against P-40s and Buffalo's in Burma my Oscars are not donig nearly as well even making high altitude sweeps. I'm suffering 3:1 losses there.

Everyone has different results it seems.

yeah, against the AI, I�m sweeping the floor with everything I�ve got in my arsenal. A PBEM opponent usually hasn�t got transport pilots with 17 air skill in his fighter squadrons. And please don�t take this as offense against people that are playing vs AI. Nor is it a praise of PBEM players. You have to be cautious these days...

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 171

RE: The tojo as uber..... - 3/26/2010 8:39:52 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

"And this is for sure repeatable, just like it is repeatable that you shoot P-40 out of the sky with Zeroes for example."
so just because Zeros can shoot P-40s out of the sky, the P-38 should always shoot Tojo's out of the sky?? If you're implying that the Zero has a turkey shoot every time it comes against the P-40... that simply isnt the case, even comming in at an higher altitude. yes Zero's can still get show down sweeping at 15-17k while my opponent is flying at 10k.

I see what the problem is. if you do it to a IJ player nothing is wrong. but when it happens to you.. now something is broken.
thats why this tread was started and that's why the other thread on the A2a model was started. It's never an issuse if you decimate your opponent. How often in the forums do you see and IJ player post allied this is uber... allied that is uber?

why is it so bad if your opponent gets uber kill rates if thats all you're trying to accomplish with stratosweeps anyways?

I see no problem with sweeps... then again i dont do that gamey strato altitude game-bs
your p-38s pilots realizing 45k doesnt produce optimum performance, probably went to an lower altitude

TBH, against the AI, I've lost more Zero's to P-40s than the other way around, and I am using high altitude sweeps. Against P-40s and Buffalo's in Burma my Oscars are not donig nearly as well even making high altitude sweeps. I'm suffering 3:1 losses there.

Everyone has different results it seems.

Similar here. Last three turns of PBEM, had two turns with Zeros sweeping at 30k (36 a/c at first sweep with mostly 70's pilots with about 40% 60's and a few 50's). Opposed by mixture of Wildcats, P38s and P40's. Usually about 5-8 a/c initally oppose the sweep with more coming up as the fights progress. Total losses : 17 Zeros versus 3 Wildcats, 3 P38s and 1 P40. Tried a sweep with Oscars in between the Zero sweeps and lost 4 Oscars to no Allied losses. What seems to happen (at least with the Zeros) is there is a first pass that gets a couple of Allies and then more Allies join the fight which swirls around with a poor exchange rate for the Japanese.

This has been my experience the entire game; sometimes I will get 3:2 or even 2:1 but usually the sweeps result in unfavorable exchange rates

this sounds good. If pilots are near equal, as are the fighters (when Tojos meet P-38 or Zeroes meet Wildcats) and numbers involved then things like 6:1 or 8:1 are off IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 172