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: Cancelling the Tony Program

 
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: Cancelling the Tony Program Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 11:40:03 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hello Chris, why not just agree with your opponent to limit max altitude to say 30k feet for any fighter ops?



Hi Paul

I´ve been thinking about that from day one of the "altitude issues" and many hrs about it have come up but none of them were "good enough" IMO to solve th trouble. And it´s an ongoing game where I have suffered from the altitude issue for over a year, it´s now slowly changing to become an advantage for me so I´m not sure to give it away after being disadvanteged the last 12 months. Seriously, the next PBEM I´m going to start (not before the game against Rainer ends and that can be a long time) surely has some hrs on it if the official oppinion on it still is "it´s all perfectly well".

The dive in general is so powerful (no matter if you have a paper flyer like the Oscar or Zero or a rugged aircraft like the P-47) you can completely reverse any outcome of an air engagement if you get the dive or not. When my fighters like Wildcats or Warhawks get shredded by Zero sweeps that get the dive I get 10:1 or higher kill rates when the Zeroes are on escort and being dived. A good example is my ongoing PBEM when my opponent just lately stated he feels like being in 44 when I took out 200+ of his aircraft with a couple of my carriers and some land based LRCAP over four hexes for only marginal losses on my side. Would the Zeroes have swept the base at 32.000ft (not reachable for my fighters), they would have made short progress with my fighters for sure (depending on the numbers of course).

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/31/2010 11:41:08 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 31
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 11:56:08 AM   
Swenslim

 

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline 		Why Hellcat cant be used as land base fighter ? F4F3 Wildcat can, and Hellcat cant ?!  In my game I have 1-1,5 losses of Zero to Wildcats on Guadalcanal, now  my Zero pull is around 0, but my opponent has endless Wildcats on Henderson field.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 32
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 12:22:26 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

Why Hellcat cant be used as land base fighter ? F4F3 Wildcat can, and Hellcat cant ?!  In my game I have 1-1,5 losses of Zero to Wildcats on Guadalcanal, now  my Zero pull is around 0, but my opponent has endless Wildcats on Henderson field.



the landbased USMC Wildcat squadrons can only be upgraded to Corsairs, no matter if PDU on or not. And that´s what they´ve done in real life too...

_____________________________


(in reply to Swenslim)
Post #: 33
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 12:41:16 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hello Chris, why not just agree with your opponent to limit max altitude to say 30k feet for any fighter ops?


I just had a thought about a way to counter the high altitude sweep and CAP issue.

If your opponent is doing insanely high altitude sweeps, just set your CAP rather/very low. If your opponent has his CAP set extremely high, just bring your raids in at low atlitudes. If the altitude difference is great enough, the opposing units won't engage, right? If the CAP has to climb or dive too great a distance, the opposing units shouldn't arrive at a common altitude for combat to occur.

I haven't actually tested this yet, but it seems like it should work.

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 34
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 1:01:17 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Stuff.

You're overrating high-level sweeps. Of course, if you use gamey tactics, like hunting leaking CAP, which automatically gives the attacker massive numerical advantage, therefore not allowing defenders to recover from initial bounce, things might be different. But in this case your exploitation of game engine to produce engagements that's always one-sided in the attacker's favor is to blame.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 35
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 2:17:04 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Stuff.

You're overrating high-level sweeps. Of course, if you use gamey tactics, like hunting leaking CAP, which automatically gives the attacker massive numerical advantage, therefore not allowing defenders to recover from initial bounce, things might be different. But in this case your exploitation of game engine to produce engagements that's always one-sided in the attacker's favor is to blame.




lol, I´m exploiting the game engine. Funny that is, because I could totally reverse your statement when I send 200 fighters (8 US squadrons) on a sweep to a well Capped base (150+ fighters in the air) and my 8 squadrons go in in 8-12 "strike packs" 100% of the time no matter what you do. Would that mean the defender is exploiting the game engine because he puts up more fighters than I´m able to send in? Not the total number but the number in the strikes (which then would get shredded one by one when the enemy flies higher).



< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/31/2010 2:58:42 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 36
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 2:19:57 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hello Chris, why not just agree with your opponent to limit max altitude to say 30k feet for any fighter ops?


I just had a thought about a way to counter the high altitude sweep and CAP issue.

If your opponent is doing insanely high altitude sweeps, just set your CAP rather/very low. If your opponent has his CAP set extremely high, just bring your raids in at low atlitudes. If the altitude difference is great enough, the opposing units won't engage, right? If the CAP has to climb or dive too great a distance, the opposing units shouldn't arrive at a common altitude for combat to occur.

I haven't actually tested this yet, but it seems like it should work.




doesn´t work, have tried it with layered Cap, insanely low Cap, all high Cap etc... the highest wins if the numbers are ok for both sides. Of course, if one side totally outnumbers the other, at some point the dive ends... if you´re unlucky that won´t matter though because perhaps the higher attacker runs out of fuel, ammo or has some other technical defects and when the dive ends and the lower defender (or the other way around) starts to dive there won´t be many fighters left and therefore nothing to shoot down.

_____________________________


(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 37
Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 2:49:18 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		The Ki-61 Hien (Tony) was a close equivalent of a Bf109. The Ki-44 Shoki (Tojo) was, like the N1K1, a specialised interceptor, replacing the Ki-43 air superiority fighter. They were all markedly better aircraft than Hurricanes.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 38
RE: Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 3:04:31 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline 		What about a HR (or even a modified scenario using the editor) that caps the max altitude of any given fighter at its most maneuverable altitude band?

It might be harder to manage than a straight up 30k limit, but would probably give much better results than seeing everything and their mother flying in at 30k.

To try and stay on topic or at least near the topic, what makes the Oscar so much worse than the Tojo and the Tony? Is it the lighter armament?

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 39
RE: Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 3:58:57 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman


To try and stay on topic or at least near the topic, what makes the Oscar so much worse than the Tojo and the Tony? Is it the lighter armament?




It is also slower and much less durable.
Post #: 40
RE: Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 4:27:56 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

What about a HR (or even a modified scenario using the editor) that caps the max altitude of any given fighter at its most maneuverable altitude band?

It might be harder to manage than a straight up 30k limit, but would probably give much better results than seeing everything and their mother flying in at 30k.

To try and stay on topic or at least near the topic, what makes the Oscar so much worse than the Tojo and the Tony? Is it the lighter armament?




wouldn´t that mean it would be 10000 ft for every fighter on the map? I´ve yet to see a fighter that gets a better man rating the higher it flies.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/31/2010 4:31:08 PM >

_____________________________
Post #: 41
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 4:35:02 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
lol, I´m exploiting the game engine. Funny that is, because I could totally reverse your statement when I send 200 fighters (8 US squadrons) on a sweep to a well Capped base (150+ fighters in the air) and my 8 squadrons go in in 8-12 "strike packs" 100% of the time no matter what you do. Would that mean the defender is exploiting the game engine because he puts up more fighters than I´m able to send in?

No, that mean you (1) aren't doing enough to ensure a coordinated sweep (takeoff from a single base, commanders with good Leadership, all squadrons assigned to a single HQ, that HQ being present at the base from which squadrons fly, pilots with good experience) (2) complaining that the game refuses to give your sweeps the overwhelming advantage you want them to have, therefore you resort to exploiting the game engine to obtain said advantage. Fine, if your opponent is OK with this way of playing, but stop complaining that high-level sweeps are overpowered, because you just testified yourself that they aren't. Numbers beat altitude most of the time, and coordination penalties for the attacker is precisely the balancing factor that offsets the sweep advantage.






< Message edited by FatR -- 5/31/2010 4:37:27 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 42
RE: Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 4:36:18 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

What about a HR (or even a modified scenario using the editor) that caps the max altitude of any given fighter at its most maneuverable altitude band?

It might be harder to manage than a straight up 30k limit, but would probably give much better results than seeing everything and their mother flying in at 30k.

To try and stay on topic or at least near the topic, what makes the Oscar so much worse than the Tojo and the Tony? Is it the lighter armament?




wouldn´t that mean it would be 10000 ft for every fighter on the map? I´ve yet to see a fighter that gets a better man rating the higher it flies.



Well if all of them fly best at 10k feet, then forgive me. I guess a 30k cap would be best in such a case.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 43
RE: Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 5:31:13 PM   
offenseman


Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman



Well if all of them fly best at 10k feet, then forgive me. I guess a 30k cap would be best in such a case.


I am going to propose a 30k max alt in my next PBEM (coming soon). It seems like a fair compromise to me. There really wasn't much flying higher than that in the PTO anyway so it has a fairly historical bent to it. Recon excepted of course...

Some of you are much better versed in this area than myself- can anyone tell me at what alt B29s commonly flew their missions?




_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.
Post #: 44
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 6:33:51 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
lol, I´m exploiting the game engine. Funny that is, because I could totally reverse your statement when I send 200 fighters (8 US squadrons) on a sweep to a well Capped base (150+ fighters in the air) and my 8 squadrons go in in 8-12 "strike packs" 100% of the time no matter what you do. Would that mean the defender is exploiting the game engine because he puts up more fighters than I´m able to send in?

No, that mean you (1) aren't doing enough to ensure a coordinated sweep (takeoff from a single base, commanders with good Leadership, all squadrons assigned to a single HQ, that HQ being present at the base from which squadrons fly, pilots with good experience) (2) complaining that the game refuses to give your sweeps the overwhelming advantage you want them to have, therefore you resort to exploiting the game engine to obtain said advantage. Fine, if your opponent is OK with this way of playing, but stop complaining that high-level sweeps are overpowered, because you just testified yourself that they aren't. Numbers beat altitude most of the time, and coordination penalties for the attacker is precisely the balancing factor that offsets the sweep advantage.















Sorry, I am with CT here. High altitude sweeps are deadly especially if the sweeping plane is a better aircraft and has equal or superior numbers. Like he says, it is not so much the altitude but the bounce. So even sweepers at 15,000 feet will get get the bounce on CAP at 12,000 feet and potentially eat them up. The result is that a smart player will take his planes up higher and higher to get the bounce on his opponent, and then the opponent will counter by capping higher until both are at max service ceiling. Problem is, early in the game war the zero and tojo can go higher than Allied planes and thus own the bounce and later game P47 and corsairs go higher and return the favor. It really is a design limitation as in the game, height advantage means "the bounce" which translates into surprise, Well in the real deal not all aircraft at inferiour altitudes were "bounced." (The common tactic for heavier Allied fighters when faced with diving Japanese aircraft was just to dive away themselves-if they were not bounced).

You can say it all equals out in the end and it does in a perverse way, but that don't mean that if feels right. I just get kind of ill when I see all of these air battles at 30,000+feet.

The suggestion for a house rule limiting aircraft to their best performance band will not work as the P40 will be restricted to 15000 ft and the zero, ocar and tojo would be permitted to go to 20,000. This would not change the problem as the Japanese planes will continue to have an advantage as will the 2nd generation Allied fighters later in the game. And of course, limiting all planes to a fixed height, say not more than 30,000 feet, will only create a lot of fights at 30,000 feet and make the game sort of boring. So, I have to admit that there really is not a decent solution and it might be very difficult for the devs to come up with one as I know that one problem fix is a lot of work and just may well create another.

And, I am trying all sorts of things but can't get my own sweeps to coodinate too well. I really like air coodination penalties, especially in less than optimum conditions, but even in great conditions, (HQs, big air base, clear weather, support) I am having trouble gettng coordination. Sometimes I see that it my own fault. Overstacking mostly, but not all the time. I have not been sweeping much but still don't think I have seen a coordinated sweep attack yet in over 300 turns.

Perhaps a simple solution to this is allow the Allied player to combine squadrons like in WITP into the larger groups, so that one unit sweeps can put at least 50-70 planes over the target. This might also help with bomber coordination as well. Then only allow full squadrons to be built (both Japanese and Allied) at level 5 bases or higher as well to prevent abuse of this and to reflect that coordation from a large well developed base would have been easier.






_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 45
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 7:31:00 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline 		Well what have been the results thus far of those playing with a 30k cap on sweeps?

What planes tend to have the advantage when both are flying at the same altitude?

Is there still a "bounce"?

Does the one with the best maneuverability win?

It opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 46
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 9:04:41 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		A 30k altitude limit is far from an ideal solution but seems the best compromise at the moment.
Post #: 47
RE: Tonies and Tojos - 5/31/2010 9:38:37 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

What about a HR (or even a modified scenario using the editor) that caps the max altitude of any given fighter at its most maneuverable altitude band?

It might be harder to manage than a straight up 30k limit, but would probably give much better results than seeing everything and their mother flying in at 30k.

To try and stay on topic or at least near the topic, what makes the Oscar so much worse than the Tojo and the Tony? Is it the lighter armament?



The Oscar was very lightly built and had WWI-style armament. The Tojo was the Japanese version of the P47.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Post #: 48
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 5/31/2010 11:19:53 PM   
Dora09

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline 		Really!?

In my PBEM I recal seeing lots of F6Fs and Corsairs (the later of which are invincible) as well as enough p47 (which are beyond invincible) by mid 1943. The only Japanese fighters in this game that compete equally are the N1K1s and even they with (80+ pilots) can get mauled by p47s and the second Corsair varient.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 49
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 8:11:53 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
The suggestion for a house rule limiting aircraft to their best performance band will not work as the P40 will be restricted to 15000 ft and the zero, ocar and tojo would be permitted to go to 20,000.

The only plane that can go higher than its contemporary model of P-40 under this houserule is A6M3. And it is limited to the small number of airgroups in stock.







(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 50
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 9:04:45 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		A house rule where you have to go looking up stuff and - more importantly - making certain you remember to apply the right number to the right aircraft is a loser of a house rule in my book. I know the intention is good but I would never use a house rule like that - too much additional stuff to do/remember and too easy to make errors.

Of course, YMMV.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 51
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 9:39:53 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
lol, I´m exploiting the game engine. Funny that is, because I could totally reverse your statement when I send 200 fighters (8 US squadrons) on a sweep to a well Capped base (150+ fighters in the air) and my 8 squadrons go in in 8-12 "strike packs" 100% of the time no matter what you do. Would that mean the defender is exploiting the game engine because he puts up more fighters than I´m able to send in?

No, that mean you (1) aren't doing enough to ensure a coordinated sweep (takeoff from a single base, commanders with good Leadership, all squadrons assigned to a single HQ, that HQ being present at the base from which squadrons fly, pilots with good experience) (2) complaining that the game refuses to give your sweeps the overwhelming advantage you want them to have, therefore you resort to exploiting the game engine to obtain said advantage. Fine, if your opponent is OK with this way of playing, but stop complaining that high-level sweeps are overpowered, because you just testified yourself that they aren't. Numbers beat altitude most of the time, and coordination penalties for the attacker is precisely the balancing factor that offsets the sweep advantage.



show me the AAR with the daily combat reports that shows sweeps going in coordinated or (in the BEST case) squadron by squadron most of the times. Believe me, I´ve spent so many ours with that BS that is called aircraft coordination that I´m well aware of those myths what to do and what to have. Mind you, even a dev looked at one of my saves and the only thing he came up with was the suggestion to change the HQs of the squadrons. Well, tested that in my AI game and it showed ZERO effect, also did it in my PBEM just to make people happy with NO effect.

reading your post makes me think you have no clue about what you really talk about. You can of course convince me with a daily AAR (same as I´ve told the air team leader) that shows the other side of the coin. Sorry, until then, the evidence is only shown by me it seems as I´m doing a daily AAR with the complete set of combat reports. Of course there´s the possibility of my combat reports being fake or of course I´m lying about the settings.

Funny though that other people are reporting the exact same things, even dev team members. Hmm, they must not know anything about the coordination issue then? We´re far off the original Tony vs Tojo though...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/1/2010 9:48:15 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 52
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 9:41:59 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
lol, I´m exploiting the game engine. Funny that is, because I could totally reverse your statement when I send 200 fighters (8 US squadrons) on a sweep to a well Capped base (150+ fighters in the air) and my 8 squadrons go in in 8-12 "strike packs" 100% of the time no matter what you do. Would that mean the defender is exploiting the game engine because he puts up more fighters than I´m able to send in?

No, that mean you (1) aren't doing enough to ensure a coordinated sweep (takeoff from a single base, commanders with good Leadership, all squadrons assigned to a single HQ, that HQ being present at the base from which squadrons fly, pilots with good experience) (2) complaining that the game refuses to give your sweeps the overwhelming advantage you want them to have, therefore you resort to exploiting the game engine to obtain said advantage. Fine, if your opponent is OK with this way of playing, but stop complaining that high-level sweeps are overpowered, because you just testified yourself that they aren't. Numbers beat altitude most of the time, and coordination penalties for the attacker is precisely the balancing factor that offsets the sweep advantage.















Sorry, I am with CT here. High altitude sweeps are deadly especially if the sweeping plane is a better aircraft and has equal or superior numbers. Like he says, it is not so much the altitude but the bounce. So even sweepers at 15,000 feet will get get the bounce on CAP at 12,000 feet and potentially eat them up. The result is that a smart player will take his planes up higher and higher to get the bounce on his opponent, and then the opponent will counter by capping higher until both are at max service ceiling. Problem is, early in the game war the zero and tojo can go higher than Allied planes and thus own the bounce and later game P47 and corsairs go higher and return the favor. It really is a design limitation as in the game, height advantage means "the bounce" which translates into surprise, Well in the real deal not all aircraft at inferiour altitudes were "bounced." (The common tactic for heavier Allied fighters when faced with diving Japanese aircraft was just to dive away themselves-if they were not bounced).

You can say it all equals out in the end and it does in a perverse way, but that don't mean that if feels right. I just get kind of ill when I see all of these air battles at 30,000+feet.

The suggestion for a house rule limiting aircraft to their best performance band will not work as the P40 will be restricted to 15000 ft and the zero, ocar and tojo would be permitted to go to 20,000. This would not change the problem as the Japanese planes will continue to have an advantage as will the 2nd generation Allied fighters later in the game. And of course, limiting all planes to a fixed height, say not more than 30,000 feet, will only create a lot of fights at 30,000 feet and make the game sort of boring. So, I have to admit that there really is not a decent solution and it might be very difficult for the devs to come up with one as I know that one problem fix is a lot of work and just may well create another.

And, I am trying all sorts of things but can't get my own sweeps to coodinate too well. I really like air coodination penalties, especially in less than optimum conditions, but even in great conditions, (HQs, big air base, clear weather, support) I am having trouble gettng coordination. Sometimes I see that it my own fault. Overstacking mostly, but not all the time. I have not been sweeping much but still don't think I have seen a coordinated sweep attack yet in over 300 turns.

Perhaps a simple solution to this is allow the Allied player to combine squadrons like in WITP into the larger groups, so that one unit sweeps can put at least 50-70 planes over the target. This might also help with bomber coordination as well. Then only allow full squadrons to be built (both Japanese and Allied) at level 5 bases or higher as well to prevent abuse of this and to reflect that coordation from a large well developed base would have been easier.








can´t say it any better

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 53
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 9:49:16 AM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
A house rule where you have to go looking up stuff and - more importantly - making certain you remember to apply the right number to the right aircraft is a loser of a house rule in my book. I know the intention is good but I would never use a house rule like that - too much additional stuff to do/remember and too easy to make errors.


I am here with you witpqs. I feel somehow disturbed by such artificial rules so to before every encounter look at stats of every plane involved...
Looking at stuff and preventing strange results of overused game mechanics -- this is a thing that the game's engine should do for me...

Moreover, limiting CAP & sweeps to best bands doesn't fix the problem -- if there one exist.
Because in practice you have Tojo sweep vs. P40K = fight at 20 000 ft. But Tojo vs Hurricane IIb Trop = 20 000 vs 15 000 ft...? So what is the fix here?
Next, late war -- P47D2 at 31 000 vs N1K2 at 20 000 ft? According to the "HRule of bands" I won't be allowed to place my defending fighters higher than 20 000? How is it different from the situation that P47s goes at 42 000 and defending N1K2 are placed at 35 000 (max alt available)??
Simply, I don't get the difference of such a HR...

If any, I'd suggest a HR that says no sweeps & CAP higher than 29 000. In this case -- we'd at least meet at a "equal" height, because this is a height available to most if not all Allied fighters. Personally, I believe there is no such a thing as "a high alt sweep advantage". There is "a sweep over CAP advantage" well documented. Many times I got good results with sweeping with Oscars well below 10 000 ft (the best mvr band).
But HRs are always to suit the game, because this is a game and both players should feel it's fun. If someone feels it is not, there is no way of continuing it.




< Message edited by viberpol -- 6/1/2010 9:52:06 AM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 54
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 9:53:30 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		The dive isn´t a problem as long as more or less equal numbers are involved. With equal numbers there are enough die rolls for whatever things it seems that the dive ends immedietely, changes over to the other side or doesn´t happen at all (if you´re lucky and are at the same alt). The main problem with all this stays the same, you can fire up as many fighters on Cap as you wish but even if you tell 1000 fighters to attack the Cap, they will usally go in in bits and pieces. So when you then face a Cap higher up, every single squadron coming in will be dived and shot to pieces one by one, resulting in those ridicoulos loops of kill rates above 10-15:1.

And then we´re back at the logic of the game that WWII fighter squadrons obviously weren´t able to fly with 50 aircraft together to the same target 90 miles away when they are coming from a huge airfield complex.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/1/2010 10:04:51 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 55
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 12:12:14 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hello Chris, why not just agree with your opponent to limit max altitude to say 30k feet for any fighter ops?


I just had a thought about a way to counter the high altitude sweep and CAP issue.

If your opponent is doing insanely high altitude sweeps, just set your CAP rather/very low. If your opponent has his CAP set extremely high, just bring your raids in at low atlitudes. If the altitude difference is great enough, the opposing units won't engage, right? If the CAP has to climb or dive too great a distance, the opposing units shouldn't arrive at a common altitude for combat to occur.

I haven't actually tested this yet, but it seems like it should work.



Doesn't work, you get massacred. You see this with CAPs at 35,000' plus massacring bombers at 6000'.

I'd like to see more bombers at least bombing without being engaged in such situations. Especially bombers like the Betty. Schnellbombers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 56
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 12:18:03 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		And I don't agree with houserules on max altitude.

It is simplistic. All a houserule like that does is mean that everybody's maneuver rating that matters is the maneuver rating at 30K feet. This means a lot of aircraft get short changed.

You might as well argue you can't go higher than 6k feet.

The altitude thing ruins the air model completely. All that tender loving care inputting maneuver ratings at different altitudes is utterly wasted, none of it is relevant. House rules don't change that. What could be a very complex sub game has ended up being borked by the God Stat.

Surely it would be fairly easy to fix? Just a different weighting to dive advantages, might even be one line of code depending on how it all works. The dive massacre is in my mind the absolute #1 issue with this game, fix that and it'd be so much better.

Interestingly a JFB discovered the dive massacre early on while playing with his Zeroes - in his shortsightedness he concluded that P40s were too good when above Zeroes IIRC, when the true conclusion is that it wasn't about P40 vs Zero at all, it was about how anything flying above anything else wins.

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 57
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 12:20:31 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		{ahem} getting back to the original thread topic, don't 4get the Ki100 which was probably the best and ultimate development of the Tony airframe but hastily married to a decent radial engine, the Ha-112, after the bombing & destruction of the only factory making the inline Ha-40's.
A well-handled Ki100 in 1945 could outmanouver P47's with ease and even give the P51D's a run for their money - its best altitude performance-wise was probablya round the medium band.

If you cancel development of the early Ki61 Tony, do you loose the ability to develop and introduce the Ki100 which is a far better plane & one of the few interceptors able to meet the best of the Allied long-range fighters on anything like equal terms?

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 58
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 1:07:54 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
If you cancel development of the early Ki61 Tony, do you loose the ability to develop and introduce the Ki100 which is a far better plane & one of the few interceptors able to meet the best of the Allied long-range fighters on anything like equal terms?


Why "loose the ability to develop (...) Ki100"?
You do not lose it, just switch your R&D factories to the model you like...

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 59
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 6/1/2010 1:25:21 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
The altitude thing ruins the air model completely. All that tender loving care inputting maneuver ratings at different altitudes is utterly wasted, none of it is relevant. House rules don't change that.


True.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Surely it would be fairly easy to fix? Just a different weighting to dive advantages, might even be one line of code depending on how it all works. The dive massacre is in my mind the absolute #1 issue with this game, fix that and it'd be so much better.


Nothing is simple with the AE air model...
Is the altitute advantage a bonus and should be important? IMHO, yes. It is OK with me that dive from the sun with height advantage results in surprise... hmmm... but maybe... let's use the bands some more? Make the combat happen in bands?


Imagine a new model. If sweep is 10 000 higher than CAP, there's only limited combat or no combat at all is present.
This would imitate too big difference and not fulfilling the mission -- which actually is to clean the sky.
If sweep meets CAP in the same band/range of say 4999 up 4999 down, combat occurs as usual.
This would make the players to change the strategy for CAP as well, because there's a threat of unopposed bombing raid if the CAP was set too high.
You wouldn't sweep too high, because you'll not engage the CAP.
There would be no reason JFBs combine their squadrons to make a "punch sweep" with 40 fighters because 2-3 groups at different altitude will be needed to cover the base effectively.
You wouldn't send the bombers too hight (10 000 above the CAP) to avoid fighters, because high altitude bombing is inefficient. You wouldn't place CAP too high because you gonna miss the raid... etc.
So players would be themselves forced to make many more choices and do not reach for the stratosphere...


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
I'd like to see more bombers at least bombing without being engaged in such situations. Especially bombers like the Betty. Schnellbombers.


Wishes...
And I'd like to see more Allied unescorted bombers withdrawing from combat when damaged or facing strong CAP... so, we can only dream about a perfect model...



< Message edited by viberpol -- 6/1/2010 1:40:11 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Cancelling the Tony Program Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

1.844