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: Solution for the 4 engine discussion

 
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: Solution for the 4 engine discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 4:00:50 AM   
ChickenOfTheSea


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

ORIGINAL: Athius

let's just all agree to disagree and move back to the subject of the topic; this discussion is not heading in a nice direction.


OT: I think that the main problem with the bombers isn't their high durability but their high armament. B17's should survive many hits.


While this thread has degenerated to pointless political drivel, I think this is an idea worth considering.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Athius)
Post #: 61
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 4:58:56 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		War History,

Possibly you are new here as that was your first post. You misinterpret the way the word "win" is used with respect to AE. Either player can indeed 'win' in the game sense. Further, many players set their own victory conditions and ignore what the game says about winning. Third, the way the word "win" was used was to mean 'win the war'. AE has the objective of modeling historical capabilities. If Japan had a significant chance to 'win the war', AE would not be meeting that objective. In the game sense for AE 'winning' loosely means doing better than that war participant did in real life.

Regarding some developer comments, you probably have missed a lot of context that, had you seen it, might have influenced your opinion.

Regarding LeMay, 'condoned' essentially means 'approved'; I got the impression you meant the opposite.

Most important of all, welcome to the AE forums!

Do you have AE or are you still mulling it over?

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 62
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 7:07:58 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Some notable figures for those who think B-29 raids are underrepresented. Note the interval between missions. Note the variation in Raid size. If you average these raids the average sortie per raid is 186 B-29s. Raids of 300+ B-29s were an outlier.

* 19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
* 25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings
* 4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area
* 10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000 civilians
* 2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
* 3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
* 7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.
* 13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
* 15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area
* 24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace
* 26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace
* 20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb
Pumpkin bomb
"Pumpkin bombs" were conventional high explosive aerial bombs developed by the Manhattan Project and used by the United States Army Air Forces against Japan during World War II. The name "pumpkin bomb" resulted from the large ellipsoidal shape of the munition and was the actual reference term used...

(bomb with same ballistics as nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at but missing the Imperial Palace
* 8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
* 10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex


This is the salient point - Can players match the Real Life sortie rates of the B-29s in the game? On the answer to that question depends whether the air SPS sizes of the islands in the game should be modified.

I am (as I have always been) very interested to see how the in-game sortie rates compare (don't forget to set things up properly: HQ present, max airfield sizes, good leaders, good supply, standing down units between missions etc.)

Andrew

PS: PLEASE keep this thread on topic. This is a game forum which is not intended for political discussions of any kind.

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 4/30/2010 11:37:46 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 63
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 7:16:53 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Noticed that the percentage of posts that concern the original intention of the thread dropped to 0.01%.
From that I get the strong impression that we don´t need a "Solution for the 4 engine discussion"
because it works perfectly fine.
This is my feeling at least.

I was also talking to Rob Brennan about his problems to keep 4 engines flying and compared them to my issues fighting them off.
If I count two and two together then its working perfectly.

So I guess theres not much to say anymore. (except that you probably have to rest B-29 for a bit before you launch an intended
larger strike, and this seems in line with history to me).



_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 64
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 12:38:23 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

This is the salient point - Can players match the Real Life sortie rates of the B-29s in the game? On the answer to that question depends whether the air SPS sizes of the islands in the game should be modified.


That depends also on japanese fighter situation also AAA.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 65
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 1:29:39 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Some notable figures for those who think B-29 raids are underrepresented. Note the interval between missions. Note the variation in Raid size. If you average these raids the average sortie per raid is 186 B-29s. Raids of 300+ B-29s were an outlier.

* 19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
* 25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings
* 4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area
* 10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000 civilians
* 2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
* 3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
* 7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.
* 13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
* 15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area
* 24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace
* 26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace
* 20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb
Pumpkin bomb
"Pumpkin bombs" were conventional high explosive aerial bombs developed by the Manhattan Project and used by the United States Army Air Forces against Japan during World War II. The name "pumpkin bomb" resulted from the large ellipsoidal shape of the munition and was the actual reference term used...

(bomb with same ballistics as nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at but missing the Imperial Palace
* 8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
* 10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex


This is the salient point - Can players match the Real Life sortie rates of the B-29s in the game? On the answer to that question depends whether the air SPS sizes of the islands in the game should be modified.

I am (as I have always been) very interested to see how the in-game sortie rates compare (don't forget to set things up properly: max airfield sizes, good leaders, good supply, standing down units between missions etc.)

Andrew

PS: PLEASE keep this thread on topic. This is a game forum which is not intended for political discussions of any kind.




AndyMac got historical sized B-29 strikes out of the Marianas when the airfield size discussion araised for the first time, so it is definetely possible to fly the same sized strikes. The following question then will be if the same sized strikes can also achieve the same historical damage or only a percentage of the damage that was done. I seriously doubt that a 300-500 B-29 strike does the same damage in the game as it did in real life in above mentioned attacks. This then leads to the question if we even want to whipe out a whole city in one day in the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 66
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 1:30:08 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Noticed that the percentage of posts that concern the original intention of the thread dropped to 0.01%.
From that I get the strong impression that we don´t need a "Solution for the 4 engine discussion"
because it works perfectly fine.
This is my feeling at least.

I was also talking to Rob Brennan about his problems to keep 4 engines flying and compared them to my issues fighting them off.
If I count two and two together then its working perfectly.

So I guess theres not much to say anymore. (except that you probably have to rest B-29 for a bit before you launch an intended
larger strike, and this seems in line with history to me).





anything not working fine?

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 67
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 4:10:00 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Noticed that the percentage of posts that concern the original intention of the thread dropped to 0.01%.
From that I get the strong impression that we don´t need a "Solution for the 4 engine discussion"
because it works perfectly fine.
This is my feeling at least.

I was also talking to Rob Brennan about his problems to keep 4 engines flying and compared them to my issues fighting them off.
If I count two and two together then its working perfectly.

So I guess theres not much to say anymore. (except that you probably have to rest B-29 for a bit before you launch an intended
larger strike, and this seems in line with history to me).





anything not working fine?



Maybe the selective perception of some forum members but I´d rate this as a minor issue...

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 68
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 5:28:48 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Noticed that the percentage of posts that concern the original intention of the thread dropped to 0.01%. (emphasis added by Alfred)
From that I get the strong impression that we don´t need a "Solution for the 4 engine discussion"
because it works perfectly fine.
This is my feeling at least.

I was also talking to Rob Brennan about his problems to keep 4 engines flying and compared them to my issues fighting them off.
If I count two and two together then its working perfectly.

So I guess theres not much to say anymore. (except that you probably have to rest B-29 for a bit before you launch an intended
larger strike, and this seems in line with history to me).




Still as high as 0.01%. With all the recent noise, I'm surprised the number of posts on point is not lower.

I assume you were referring to your post #26 rather than post #1 (the emphasis in both posts was different albeit subtle) which I addressed in my post #6. Proceeding on the basis that my assumption is correct, I'll throw in another alternative approach aimed at encouraging players to send out fighter escorts with their B-29 raids. Mind you, this suggestion should not be read as indicating that I am fully 100% in favour of its implementation.

Tweak morale. Make it that any bomber raid (again we should not single out B-29s only) which flies without accompanying fighter escorts and is confronted over the target by CAP which inflicts damage to the bombers, suffers a greater decrease in the morale of the bomber pilots than would be the case if fighter escorts had been there.

This would require code changes along these lines. For each damaging hit
(a) an unescorted bomber receives from cap, the new pilot morale = previous pilot morale/3
(b) an escorted bomber receives from cap, the new pilot morale = previous pilot morale/2

This would have the benefit of firstly increasing the likelihood of bombers aborting their mission even if only met by CAP lacking the firepower to shoot them out of the sky, and secondly, in a more satisfactory manner than increasing service ratings, reduce the likelihood of subsequent missions until morale had recovered.

Alfred

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 69
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 6:35:39 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Alfred your idea is interesting but lacks for the same reasons as my original proposal (you have pointed out these weakness in my reasoning yourself btw. )

The morale hit by damaged planes result through A2A and AAA.
So where draw the line? This is as hard to discern for my original idea as it is for yours.

Also (an educated guess since I don´t know the details of the code) every morale hit because of plane damage is calculated the same way,
whether its a B17 or a Zero doesn´t matter.
So you´d have to add new classes of planes with different dice rolls for each type to a program that was not designed or tested to do this.
They beauty of WitP sometimes lies exactly in its simplicity, where many different actions are calculated the same way and the only
difference is the input parameters.

I think the workload to change this supercedes the benefit by quite a high proportion (without even counting in the possibility of generating new bugs
by such a big change).

Even if I repeat myself now: the best way to really find out if the system is bogged, and you have only your own pespective for reasoning, is to ask your opponent.
In many instances you will find out that he has problems on his own and the percieved weakness of yourself is only the result of a high level struggle,
which causes other but nowhere lesser problems for the guy you are fighting against.

I had some short discussions with Rob Brennan (when I already was a bit further into this thread) and it left me with the impression that
he had a hard time keeping his heavies in the air for prolonged periods of time because of their high supply consumption and high service
rating.

As my honoured opponent some time ago said:
Fight when you can (addendum by me: or of you must. Banzai). Don´t if you can´t.

Thats an integral part of this game.



_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 70
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 7:02:55 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		LoBaron,

Well I did say that it should not be assumed I was in support of the idea! See what happens when I try to help you out in getting this thread back on topic.

I certainly don't resile from my comments in post #6. For the reasons you stated, one should always be very wary of anything which requires coding changes. However I don't really think that the flak/A2A dichotomy, which I raised in my post #6, actually applies to the same extent regarding morale.

Your original post suggested decreasing pilot experience. To me the lessons which an unescorted bomber pilot might learn, or mistakes made, from A2A combat are quite different from those arising from flak. A bomber pilot just has to endure flak (assuming he can't fly over or under it) iresspective of whether he has or has not, fighter escorts. On the other hand a (probably temporary) decrease in morale seems to me to be more consistent with the real world. A damaging hit from flak would not have to be coded to decrease his morale whereas such a hit from CAP would impact his morale because through no fault of his own, the bomber pilot has been abandoned - had a fighter escort been present, the bomber pilot would not have faced CAP.

Alfred

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 71
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 7:28:51 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Hehe sorry for that.

Let me try to make it a bit clearer by concentrating specifically on this part of your post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Tweak morale. Make it that any bomber raid (again we should not single out B-29s only) which flies without accompanying fighter escorts and is confronted over the target by CAP which inflicts damage to the bombers, suffers a greater decrease in the morale of the bomber pilots than would be the case if fighter escorts had been there.


This already happens. All the time in every air combat. At least that is the conclusion I´m coming to.

The defender only has a limited ammount of planes on CAP. Planes shot down or being damaged, or even engaged in a fight against escorts
suffer either a KIA/MIA, a morale hit on damage, or at least a fatigue hit because of the fight.
Naturally this lessens the ammount of fighters that can engage the bombers after breaking through the escort screen, and those who do are in worse condition
as when they were engaging unescorted bombers.
The direct result of this is the escorted bombers suffer less damaged planes which translate into lighter fatifue/moral hit on the bomber pilots.


An increased morale hit on bomber pilots could increase that impact; but to ask for this I´d have to sure this is neccesary (and I am not when taking a step back
and reevaluate the situation) and also the question is if increasing the diversity of dice rolls involved wouldn´t cause more problems than it would solve.





_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 72
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 7:36:32 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Noticed that the percentage of posts that concern the original intention of the thread dropped to 0.01%.
From that I get the strong impression that we don´t need a "Solution for the 4 engine discussion"
because it works perfectly fine.
This is my feeling at least.

I was also talking to Rob Brennan about his problems to keep 4 engines flying and compared them to my issues fighting them off.
If I count two and two together then its working perfectly.

So I guess theres not much to say anymore. (except that you probably have to rest B-29 for a bit before you launch an intended
larger strike, and this seems in line with history to me).





anything not working fine?



Maybe the selective perception of some forum members but I´d rate this as a minor issue...



selective? Hmm, wonder if I should change selective perception to "having my eyes shot out"? When I only again think on your coordination guide, it just hurts me that I spent around 500 pps to finally change a lot of HQs and air units around in my PBEM just to prove in my AAR that it helps nothing. Ongoing single squadron strikes. 10 squadrons, 10 strikes etc... but that just one of the 0.1% thing you mention... minor therefore

good thing is I´m not playing vs AI for my AAR so Rainer79 could confirm the combat reports as the last thing in the end will be saying I´m making up my combat reports. And those of others too of course.


edit: oops, sorry, misread the 0.01% with 0.1%; wouldn´t want to make it worse...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/30/2010 7:37:53 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 73
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 7:40:52 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		while off topic for this thread, just throwing it in for the 0.01% thing. Last PBEM turn, one of many, working for both sides:

three squadrons, skill 70 for all of them, same base, same target, same HQ... can be repeated with 50 squadrons and as often as you wish...

end result is 17 P-40 shot out of the sky for 0 enemies... have I said they were 70 skill? But hey, as it´s only one cr, it´s selective perception. Problem is the loops will never end and are worse than WITP. Ah, before I forget it, don´t get me started and say it´s due to the weather, it´s the same in clear condition. It´s also the same if one squadron goes in at 1000ft one at 10000ft and one at 30000ft or all going in at 10000ft, 20000ft, or 30000ft. So while using superior numbers, in the end you will end up always with less aircraft over the target than the enemy as your sheep are coming in alone. Ongoing...

My contribution to today´s selective perception



Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 35 NM, estimated altitude 35,400 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 17
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 35



Allied aircraft
P-40B Warhawk x 24


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 7 destroyed



CAP engaged:
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(9 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(17 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(12 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(14 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 11 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 15
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 25



Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 19


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38E Lightning: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 7 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 11 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 10
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 14



Allied aircraft
P-38F Lightning x 11


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-38F Lightning: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Raid is overhead
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (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 30000
Raid is overhead



< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/30/2010 7:43:16 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 74
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 8:46:47 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Ah...but CT...that is a beautiful display of a layered CAP defense you ran into.
My opponent and me use this very often. Good to know it works for others too.

Thanks for your tonight´s contribution of selective perception...

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 75
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 4/30/2010 9:41:52 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 76
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 5/1/2010 1:11:41 AM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

while off topic for this thread, just throwing it in for the 0.01% thing. Last PBEM turn, one of many, working for both sides:

three squadrons, skill 70 for all of them, same base, same target, same HQ... can be repeated with 50 squadrons and as often as you wish...

end result is 17 P-40 shot out of the sky for 0 enemies... have I said they were 70 skill? But hey, as it´s only one cr, it´s selective perception. Problem is the loops will never end and are worse than WITP. Ah, before I forget it, don´t get me started and say it´s due to the weather, it´s the same in clear condition. It´s also the same if one squadron goes in at 1000ft one at 10000ft and one at 30000ft or all going in at 10000ft, 20000ft, or 30000ft. So while using superior numbers, in the end you will end up always with less aircraft over the target than the enemy as your sheep are coming in alone. Ongoing...

My contribution to today´s selective perception



Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 35 NM, estimated altitude 35,400 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 17
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 35



Allied aircraft
P-40B Warhawk x 24


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 7 destroyed



CAP engaged:
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(9 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(17 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(12 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(14 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 11 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 15
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 25



Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 19


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38E Lightning: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 7 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 11 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 10
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 14



Allied aircraft
P-38F Lightning x 11


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-38F Lightning: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Raid is overhead
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (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 30000
Raid is overhead






Ouch !

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 77
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 5/1/2010 5:04:55 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ah...but CT...that is a beautiful display of a layered CAP defense you ran into.
My opponent and me use this very often. Good to know it works for others too.

Thanks for your tonight´s contribution of selective perception...



so if the enemy uses layerd Cap then this causes the other side sending in the squadrons one after another in 95%+ of the times? Ah, now I see...

while you´re surely not serious about it, the 10 squadrons 10 (or more) sweeps are just as plain stupid as they´ve been right from the beginning and nothing changes that. No dev statement nor any guide on how to do something. Some time ago one of the devs was so kind to look at my PBEM because I´ve kept complaining in my AAR and I was told the only thing I could do more would be to change my units to the right HQ. I tested it in my AI game and found out that it´s only a waste of political points. I´ve kept complaining in my AAR and at some point I just went ahead and spent 500 pps to change a bunch of fighter squadrons. They´ve then been in range of TWO HQs that were suiting them and what does it help? Nothing, just like I´ve said before.

A turn later, today´s contribution of selective perception (and it´s just one of the stupid single squadron kamikaze sweeps that happen on and on and on AND all the myths about air coordination are met):



Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 17 NM, estimated altitude 29,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 17
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 23


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 12 destroyed



CAP engaged:
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(17 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(14 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 14 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(9 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes


stupid sweep one... 19 Warhawks shot down, skill 70

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 16
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 20



Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 25


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

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 8 destroyed



CAP engaged:
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 16000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes

stupid sweep two... 16 Aircabras shot down, skill 70

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 42 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 5
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10



Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 25


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
16 x P-39D Airacobra sweeping at 31000 feet

CAP engaged:
24th Sentai with Ki-43-IIa Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
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 1 minutes
50th 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 16000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes

stupid sweep three... the dive finally changed and only one Airacobra shot down...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 25 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 22


No Allied losses



Aircraft Attacking:
22 x P-40E Warhawk sweeping at 25000 feet


stupid sweep four... nothing left... one P-40E squadron didn´t launch at all but wouldn´t have made a difference other that we would have seen one more single squadron sweep against nothing in the air...





it´s not that selective to be honest... it´s a feature of a well working routine... why did this betatester once tell me: "first you will think that the airroutine is great, the further you will get into the game the more you will notice it´s the most borked routines of all in the game". And with 800 turns done, I can only agree with him.

but that´s the wrong thread for it anyway and while I for sure won´t open a thread about it, I´m sure it won´t take long to see one about it again anyway. This thread is about 4Es and the funny thing about it, I won´t use fighters anymore anyway against enemy bases, I will only use a hundred 4Es to fly in unescorted, like it was done in real life to shred the enemy. Hey, it´s a game afterall and not a simulation. Though the map gets a triple A as well as the OOB...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/1/2010 5:09:24 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 78
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 5/1/2010 7:15:47 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Castor sorry but what do you exactly prove by posting one stereotypic CR after another?

Except that it must hurt running with your head against a wall several times in a row, which most of us have
learned when they started to walk?


I don´t understand you.


Also the name of the tread is:
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion


If you like to prove something, open a thread, post a couple of CR´s with all the details in this thread,
post your assumption, and wait for the analysis of others.

If anybody finds a good alternative explanation for my assumption, that satisfies those who understand it except myself , then I´d start thinking that my assumption is wrong
and the problem could probably also be either myself or how I understand the game.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 5/1/2010 7:16:07 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 79
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion - 5/3/2010 9:41:07 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Castor sorry but what do you exactly prove by posting one stereotypic CR after another?

Except that it must hurt running with your head against a wall several times in a row, which most of us have
learned when they started to walk?


I don´t understand you.


Also the name of the tread is:
RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion


If you like to prove something, open a thread, post a couple of CR´s with all the details in this thread,
post your assumption, and wait for the analysis of others.

If anybody finds a good alternative explanation for my assumption, that satisfies those who understand it except myself , then I´d start thinking that my assumption is wrong
and the problem could probably also be either myself or how I understand the game.



it was, as stated off topic and only my yesterday´s selective perception.

It´s stereotypic? Yes, unfortunetely that´s exactly what it is.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Solution for the 4 engine discussion Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719