Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >>

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/15/2002 7:41:33 PM

zed

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

for each bomb dropped by a b-25 or a-20 at battle of bismark sea there was a 35% chance of an hit. That is excellent odds. For every bomb droped from 4-6000 feet there was a 7.5% chance of an hit. I agree with Grigsby, NO CHANGES NECESSARY.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 61

- 7/15/2002 10:18:51 PM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

I think it's obvious the effects of flak, especially at low levels is understated. The facts pretty much speak for themselves.

What's even more obvious is that the effects of other factors aren't pronounced enough; The disruption effects of flak and CAP. The effects of morale and fatigue. Repair times. The lack of, or insufficiency of escorts. Overstated spotting with insufficient search assets allowing massive strikes at extreme range. Large scale air attacks with insufficient recon of the target. Bomber pilots gaining experience too quickly. Being able (and willing) to conduct low level attacks with high accuracy, with relatively low experience. No division between "level bombers" and "attack bombers".

You cannot convince me that B-17's, flying in small groups, at 1000', could attack the IJN "SuperDuper CV TF", and sink 1 CV and 1 CVL with a mere 33 sorties...with the loss of 1 aircraft. This is ridiculous. It's stupid. It is totally unrealistic. It's not an isolated occurance in game.

How about the infamous "3 bombers that fly through 125 fighters on CAP, then through the flak from an entire CV TF and sink 2 carriers"? That's probably happened to most of the people here.

How or why anyone would even attempt to justify these kind of results totally escapes me. It's not just the B-17, the B-17 is just where it's most glaringly noticable. It's not just the Allies. This is a pervasive, across the board problem.

Probably all of these factors just need slight tweaking. I don't think it's any one thing that is glaringly "wrong", it's the sum of many factors, all just off slightly, that need further tweaking and refinement. All of these factors, working together, should prevent unrealistic or totally ahistoric results...currently, they do not.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 62

- 7/15/2002 11:31:59 PM

Joel Billings

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

These are the three changes that I believe have been made to date in the next patch to be released.

1) Experience gain for pilots on transport missions has been greatly reduced.
2) Repair times for level bombers have been increased, especially for heavy bombers.
3) The Norden bombsight modifier for US aircraft has been limited below 6000 feet and totally taken away below 4000 feet (it had a minimum altitude that was not being accounted for which Mike just realized that Gary had not accounted for).

In addition, Gary is going to make a change that will reduce morale for level bomber units that have a large proportion of their planes damaged and are set for low level bombing (probably under 5000 feet). Along with the changes above, this should cut down on the ability to keep bombers flying low level missions day after day (as well as their effectiveness).

As for flak, be careful what you wish for. As it is, US combat TF's in late 42 can chew up huge amounts of enemy planes. If we were to increase flak it could seriously throw things out of balance. We are very reluctant to make a change here unless all other relatively safe/simple options have been exhausted. We're trying to achieve the rifle solution instead of the shotgun. Is the perceived issue all flak, or flak against the high endurance bombers?

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 63

Amen - 7/15/2002 11:41:59 PM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]These are the three changes that I believe have been made to date in the next patch to be released.
[/B][/QUOTE]
We knew you and the guys would come through on this!

_____________________________

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 64

- 7/15/2002 11:43:45 PM

zed

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

Joel says"

As for flak, be careful what you wish for. As it is, US combat TF's in late 42 can chew up huge amounts of enemy planes. If we were to increase flak it could seriously throw things out of balance. We are very reluctant to make a change here unless all other relatively safe/simple options have been exhausted. We're trying to achieve the rifle solution instead of the shotgun. Is the perceived issue all flak, or flak against the high endurance bombers?"

that is why I have said leave flak alone. As IJN player, in late 1942 my planes are chewed up by flak. It is very deadly.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 65

- 7/15/2002 11:45:35 PM

MatrixFan

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Frankfurt, Deutschland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]These are the three changes that I believe have been made to date in the next patch to be released.

1) Experience gain for pilots on transport missions has been greatly reduced.
2) Repair times for level bombers have been increased, especially for heavy bombers.
3) The Norden bombsight modifier for US aircraft has been limited below 6000 feet and totally taken away below 4000 feet (it had a minimum altitude that was not being accounted for which Mike just realized that Gary had not accounted for).

In addition, Gary is going to make a change that will reduce morale for level bomber units that have a large proportion of their planes damaged and are set for low level bombing (probably under 5000 feet). Along with the changes above, this should cut down on the ability to keep bombers flying low level missions day after day (as well as their effectiveness).

As for flak, be careful what you wish for. As it is, US combat TF's in late 42 can chew up huge amounts of enemy planes. If we were to increase flak it could seriously throw things out of balance. We are very reluctant to make a change here unless all other relatively safe/simple options have been exhausted. We're trying to achieve the rifle solution instead of the shotgun. Is the perceived issue all flak, or flak against the high endurance bombers? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds good the norden bombsight not being used below 4000 feet and longer repair times might solve the problem as long as the repair times are long enough and cost supplies.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 66

sanity prevails - 7/15/2002 11:51:40 PM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

Joel,

Those seem reasonable changes that are both in line with reality and yet allow the dgaad's of the world in engage in their bomber command fantasy's. The flak values are fine as is. If this patch is implemented, we will check it out and see if the B-17 uberbombers' wings are truly clipped. If not, I will take the battle to WITP, not going to let that game get screwed too.

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 67

- 7/15/2002 11:52:17 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

The only thing I would ask is that if such changes are to be introduced (and I agree that they should) then could they not be balanced with adjustments to the strike initiation logic so that planes are not wasted on such foolish missions in the first place.

In fact, just thinking on my feet, perhaps some sought of urgency/desperation setting is needed for AI air commanders so that under normal conditions strikes would be well planned and properly supported with rested pilots whilst under appropriate circumstances any plane with two wings and a prop will be thrown at the target.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 68

- 7/16/2002 12:01:37 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Joel

Those upcoming changes sound very resaonable. At one point I was advocating increasing flak effectiveness but I'd say it's better to first get feedback from players after the changes you listed above have been implemented and played for a while.

elmo3

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 69

- 7/16/2002 12:16:52 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi

The three upcoming changes mentioned by Joel seems fairly good and it should be interesting to see how they effect the game. In one of my PBEM games I must have sunk 30 APs or more in two weeks with bombers at 1000 feet!
Please leave flak alone. It is allready highly effective for the USN at the end of 42 for example.
Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 70

- 7/16/2002 1:47:21 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]These are the three changes that I believe have been made to date in the next patch to be released.

1) Experience gain for pilots on transport missions has been greatly reduced.
2) Repair times for level bombers have been increased, especially for heavy bombers.
3) The Norden bombsight modifier for US aircraft has been limited below 6000 feet and totally taken away below 4000 feet (it had a minimum altitude that was not being accounted for which Mike just realized that Gary had not accounted for).

In addition, Gary is going to make a change that will reduce morale for level bomber units that have a large proportion of their planes damaged and are set for low level bombing (probably under 5000 feet). Along with the changes above, this should cut down on the ability to keep bombers flying low level missions day after day (as well as their effectiveness).

As for flak, be careful what you wish for. As it is, US combat TF's in late 42 can chew up huge amounts of enemy planes. If we were to increase flak it could seriously throw things out of balance. We are very reluctant to make a change here unless all other relatively safe/simple options have been exhausted. We're trying to achieve the rifle solution instead of the shotgun. Is the perceived issue all flak, or flak against the high endurance bombers? [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with all of the changes, as well as the reluctance to alter AA flak values which I believe are just about right.

Its funny that no one thought the number of hits being generated could possibly be caused by an actual implementation bug in the norden accuracy enhancement. Indeed your algorithim is correct, a Norden would be close to useless below 5000 feet. It was just a matter of making sure that algorithim actually worked. Good catch, Matrix.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 71

- 7/16/2002 2:19:38 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

To summarize a long post; "What Elmo said"!

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 72

- 7/16/2002 4:47:46 AM

DSandberg

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline

Cool. I personally had no idea that there was a specific Norden bombsight bonus, much less that it was being applied equally at all altitudes. If I had, I certainly would have recommending doing exactly what the forthcoming patch does, after having read accounts of the need for a Norden bombsight to "train" on a target for quite a long period of time before it can be relied upon for accuracy. (Having a target in the bombsight for that long would not be possible at low altitudes.)

[I]Edit: OMG, dgaad and I are agreeing on something! Head for the hills![/I] :eek: ;)

- David

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 73