RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant

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: High Altitude Sweep Rant

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: High Altitude Sweep Rant

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 1:32:49 AM

witpqs

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

Ian,

Do tell a bit more - will it be a database entry or one altitude common to all fighters, for example?

In basic concept, I like this a bunch.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 211

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 1:49:46 AM

vonTirpitz

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

Get the popcorn out. I have faith that Ian and the devs will do what is in the best interest of the game.

That said, I am pretty sure we will get start reading future threads (probably from the usual sources) complaining about what is "typical" for each aircraft for each year, theater, weather condition, etc.

(Reminds me of a fellow who once suggested rewriting the rules of golf because of the other fellow he chose to play with always used a seven iron).

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 212

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:05:03 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

Do tell a bit more - will it be a database entry or one altitude common to all fighters, for example?

In basic concept, I like this a bunch.

It will be hard coded, ie. uneditable. It will be different based on what we "feel" is most typical for each individual aircraft. Think Zero bonus...you know, where the player has no say in the matter.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to vonTirpitz)

Post #: 213

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:16:32 AM

witpqs

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

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 214

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:17:29 AM

davbaker

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Ever play Tobruk? The board game version. That was the direct commercialisation of a code used to analyse tanks during the 1950s and 60s. It modelled the tank-versus-tank engagement by considering each round fired, assessing where on the target it hit, and the resulting terminal ballistics. It was the armoured equivalent of the air battle model and produced just as weird results.

First Wargame I ever played when I was about 14 I think.
Got me started on this whole slippery slope

Thanks for reminding me and adding some interesting info on it.

Dave

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 215

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:18:21 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Why would you want to do that?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to davbaker)

Post #: 216

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:24:34 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Why would you want to do that?

Ian,

Maybe we are talking past each other. When you say "each individual aircraft" - you mean A) each model in the database? So you would set the P-51B at one altitude and the P-40E at another altitude, and so on.

Or do you mean B) "fighters" is one type, "fighter-bombers" is another type, etc?

If you mean B, then I like that plan.

If you mean A, then surely there would need to be a field in the database for modders to set new or altered aircraft types correctly. If not then what - the code goes by slot assignments?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 217

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:27:22 AM

vonTirpitz

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

I think that the point being made is that if the player has a choice to modify these parameters then it is likely that somebody will (eventually) misuse that ability and take advantage and exploit the logic in the game routines.

Carrying this logic forward will likely result in a colorful game of checkers before its all said and done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Please forgive my interjection (Ian) if I misinterpreted your statement.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 218

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:31:22 AM

TheElf

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

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed. If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps. Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to vonTirpitz)

Post #: 219

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:37:40 AM

vonTirpitz

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

Aside some the comments and observations made by some of the more vocal in this community I have to state that I have not noticed any serious flaws in the air engine during my current PBEM. Perhaps this is due to my opponent and I playing a reasonable game and not "running the numbers" and maxing out each game setting trying to "find" something. Or perhaps it is just plain luck.

Either way we seem to be enjoying the game as it is generally currently written. Just my two cents.

_____________________________

(in reply to vonTirpitz)

Post #: 220

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:40:23 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

I think that the point being made is that if the player has a choice to modify these parameters then it is likely that somebody will (eventually) misuse that ability and take advantage and exploit the logic in the game routines.

Carrying this logic forward will likely result in a colorful game of checkers before its all said and done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Please forgive my interjection (Ian) if I misinterpreted your statement.

Right now you can edit the database and make all destroyers have Yamato 18 inch guns. You will likely not get anyone to PBM with you unless you hide what you have done - it's called cheating. You can not edit a game in progress without your opponent's knowledge, or if someone found a way to do so it, again, is called cheating.

I am not talking about cheating, I am talking about people making mods. Quite a few have already done so. The ramifications for making mods depend upon how the hard-coding is done.

Making it so that you do not set the altitude in-game is quite a separate matter. I support taking away the altitude setting. In fact just having a "high" and "low" setting for bombers and attacks would be fine with me too. Maybe even add "very high" for level bombers.

When Ian says

quote:

It will be different based on what we "feel" is most typical for each individual aircraft.

I trust what he comes up with for the aircraft already in there. What happens when a modder wants to add variant that is not already in the game? Also, some modders have incorporated "what if the XYZ plane had better performance?" into their mods. Will they still be able to do so?

I'm am not asking about how will people be able to cheat, I am asking how this will affect the modders.

(in reply to vonTirpitz)

Post #: 221

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:45:19 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed.� If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps.� Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

Yes, remove it in-game.

But again, please clarify what you plan per my prior question.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 222

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:51:29 AM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed.� If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps.� Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

It sounds to me like the Zero bonus: one plane will always beat another plane everything else being equal.

And how will this impact escorts which are supposed to fly at the same level or just above the bombers?

My take on the whole issue is not that the altitude modeling is wrong. It is manifestly correct. What I think is questionable is that a model that works for individual plane combat, and what seems to be more appropriate for a flight sim, is not appropriate for multi-plane combat. For instance: when your fighters are escorting a large strike at an enemy CV group with 350+ fighters on CAP, every single fighter on CAP will get the dive bonus if the CAP is set higher. It is as if every single combat was de novo without considering all the other combats that are going on at the same time, or just before. There is no way every one of the 350+ planes of the CAP are going to get the altitude advantage in a such circumstances, but because the code only effects one plane at a time, the actions of one plane on plane combat do not spill over to all the other ones. It would seem that the CAP in this case would get the initial advantage, but as the combat went on some of the escorts would start to get the advantage as well. This is what I see in sweep versus CAP combats, but it is not what I see in CAP versus escort combat where the escorts, no matter how many, are all at a disadvantage throughout the entire engagement.

I think one alternative here is to just tone down the altitude advantage in the same way the speed advantage was toned down from WitP. Faster is still better, but it is no longer God. That, all by itself, could go far to address people's concerns, I believe.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 223

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 2:55:46 AM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Making it so that you do not set the altitude in-game is quite a separate matter. I support taking away the altitude setting. In fact just having a "high" and "low" setting for bombers and attacks would be fine with me too. Maybe even add "very high" for level bombers.

I would love it, but you know that ain't going to happen.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 224

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 3:01:03 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Making it so that you do not set the altitude in-game is quite a separate matter. I support taking away the altitude setting. In fact just having a "high" and "low" setting for bombers and attacks would be fine with me too. Maybe even add "very high" for level bombers.

I would love it, but you know that ain't going to happen.

At this point I'm certainly not asking for that type of change, just voicing my support for limiting the in-game altitude finagling. Somehow Elf and vonTirpitz are mixing the issues of setting altitudes in-game versus modders being able to make mods.

I did ask a very specific question to clarify what hard-coding Ian meant, and that's awaiting an answer. Hard-coding plane types is one thing, going back to a more hard-coded database would be very difficult on modders and goes against a ton of work the AE team did to move away from that.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 225

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 8:16:30 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.� We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.� You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.� Of course we'll test it first...

wow! Elf, are you serious or are you making a joke?

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 226

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 8:23:51 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Why would you want to do that?

Ian,

Maybe we are talking past each other. When you say "each individual aircraft" - you mean A) each model in the database? So you would set the P-51B at one altitude and the P-40E at another altitude, and so on.

Or do you mean B) "fighters" is one type, "fighter-bombers" is another type, etc?

If you mean B, then I like that plan.

If you mean A, then surely there would need to be a field in the database for modders to set new or altered aircraft types correctly. If not then what - the code goes by slot assignments?

But if you go with B, this would mean your early P-40 would have to fly at the same "max alt" as your late P-47 and I guess a P-47 would be flying quite a bit higher, no?

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 227

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 8:40:48 AM

AbeSimpson

Posts: 151
Joined: 6/23/2008
Status: offline

I think Ian mean each model not type of plane.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 228

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 8:41:06 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

Aside some the comments and observations made by some of the more vocal in this community I have to state that I have not noticed any serious flaws in the air engine during my current PBEM. Perhaps this is due to my opponent and I playing a reasonable game and not "running the numbers" and maxing out each game setting trying to "find" something. Or perhaps it is just plain luck.

Either way we seem to be enjoying the game as it is generally currently written. Just my two cents.

this is correct, if you really try to force yourself and your opponent into something that resembles real life then the game really works quite well. Use one or two squadrons, put them on "acceptable" alt and see them fighting the enemy with one or two daitais. Works really well, there was no doubt about that at any time I guess. But then we�re back into the PBEM "problems" that most times arise. You try to maximize your numbers. Your enemy tries to maximize numbers. A good example was just brought up when someone asked Chez how it comes that he meets two IJN CVs with one USN CV somewhere near New Caledonia. So how often have you read something like that? Pretty historic gameplay and nice for sure, but I probably wouldn�t be able myself to do something in a PBEM. Sending ONE carrier?

You know, my opponent and me for example didn�t start our PBEM with our fighters at max alt and I can asure you (while none of us being a WWII fighter pilot) we tried to go with realistic alts (at least what we thought would be realistic and that usually was between 10 and 20000ft). Didn�t take long to find out what the dive is doing to the enemy and also not long to find out how you get the dive: you have to be higher than your enemy. This also didn�t result in jumping from 10000ft to 40000ft within two turns, we first tried to go slightly higher (to have our fighters still "perform" well) but the spiral went on and on and on until we found out that for us the aircraft�s perfomance is nothing compared to the altitude advantage. Again, this is our thought about it, supported by some other people, denied by others. So who�s right or wrong, that�s another story. Like mentioned earlier, while knowing where the aircombat took place in real life, we couldn�t force us into that alt because the spiral of going 1000ft higher and 1000ft higher just took us up. Of course if someone would have stopped, we wouldn�t have gone higher, but the other one would probably end up 1000ft higher than the one that stopped.

And it�s a hard call to send a squadron of your advanced fighters with a replacement rate of 20 or 30 per month into the fight at 15000ft when you know the enemy is at 20000ft and the dive will slaughter your fighters. Of course, this doesn�t mean that Nates at 20000ft with noob pilots would slaughter aces in P-38 at 15000ft, I�m more thinking about Tojos, Tonies, Jacks at 20000ft with equal pilots on both sides. Or the other way around, Tojos at 20000ft when you know the enemy is at 25000ft with his Corsairs. Then the dive kicks in and when it turns out to be a more or less never ending dive, then you soon end up with kill rates of 10:1 and while the Japanese perhaps can afford to lose a sentai of Tojos due to a "screw up" once in a while, losing a P-38 squadron due to running into a never ending dive is a disaster, because that means waiting for a whole MONTH just to fill up these losses.

Again, if you get a 1:1 or a 2:2 in numbers of equal pilots in more or less equal aircraft and you have one of these engagements with the dive being dynamic and not totally one sided then you get very reasonable results IMO. If you run into these engagements where you get the dive and the dive and the dive, then you can quickly run into loops. Of course, these are my thoughts and others are known to think different about it and that�s ok with me. Unfortunately, my PBEM experience has lead to above�s thoughts and even with tests of suggested hrs and "reasonable" playing (believe me, tried a lot against the AI and head to head), I could not resemble what other people are reporting. For me, the dive (and therefore alt) trumps it all.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/17/2010 8:43:50 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to vonTirpitz)

Post #: 229

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/17/2010 9:48:49 AM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.� We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.� You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.� Of course we'll test it first...

Thanks. Altitude should be a function of mission profile, and that can be defined off-line by people more aware of the real issues than the average gamer.

_____________________________

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 TheElf)

Post #: 230

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/21/2010 3:04:44 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed.� If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps.� Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

You are representing the symptom as the problem. The problem IMO is that having 'the dive' the only thing that matters in air battles. The consequence and symptom is that people fly their planes higher and higher, trying to get the drive.

Dealing with just the symptom would mean you are effectively changing one god-stat for another. Previously it was max ceiling - in future it would be whatever height you decide is right for the plane. Most of the suggestions have been about toning down the dive effect, so I suspect that just a 'straw man' threat you're making - not a very useful approach.

< Message edited by Yakface -- 9/21/2010 11:40:00 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 231

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/22/2010 2:04:30 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed.� If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps.� Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

You are representing the symptom as the problem. The problem IMO is that having 'the dive' the only thing that matters in air battles. The consequence and symptom is that people fly their planes higher and higher, trying to get the drive.

Dealing with just the symptom would mean you are effectively changing one god-stat for another. Previously it was max ceiling - in future it would be whatever height you decide is right for the plane. Most of the suggestions have been about toning down the dive effect, so I suspect that just a 'straw man' threat you're making - not a very useful approach.

Why do you believe this?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 232

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/22/2010 3:53:48 AM

LoBaron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.� We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.� You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.� Of course we'll test it first...

Hi Ian!

Interesting and radical solution! I am looking forward to what you are coming up with.
Until more details are available its naturally hard to guess how the impact would be on A2A.

One question is obvious to me immediately though:

How will this affect multi-airframe coordinated strikes (currently identified by altitude coordination)?
Will this feature be removed altogether - which would remove the option to set strikes into smaller packages attacking the same target
by separating them by altitude?

Or am I misinterpreting your idea and you are only limiting combat to lower alt bands while keeping the choice of altitude intact?

Currently I hope its a misinterpretation on my side because removing the choice altogether would completely remove another very sophisticated
feature of the game:
Altitude selection on strike depending on a benefit/cost calculation which takes into account losses from AAA and CAP compared to bombing accuracy.

(TBH I am still a fan of adding severe drawbacks to high alt fighting which could include heavy fatigue and extremely low A2A losses because of lacking maneuverability,
but naturally its difficult to imagine how complicated such an implementation would be, more so when taking other mission types affected into account.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 233

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/22/2010 12:09:47 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed.� If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps.� Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

You are representing the symptom as the problem. The problem IMO is that having 'the dive' the only thing that matters in air battles. The consequence and symptom is that people fly their planes higher and higher, trying to get the drive.

Dealing with just the symptom would mean you are effectively changing one god-stat for another. Previously it was max ceiling - in future it would be whatever height you decide is right for the plane. Most of the suggestions have been about toning down the dive effect, so I suspect that just a 'straw man' threat you're making - not a very useful approach.

Why do you believe this?

From empirical observation - four games, three different opponents, two on-going in late 42. If I have the dive then I win airbattles of the type that are occuring my games, if not I'm in trouble.

From anecdotal evidence - the number of people posting on this thread about similar experiences.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure pilot skill and plane quality are also involved. However they are effectively factored out in a game, because once it passes March 42, both sides are flying pilots with around 70 air skill (and will be until the end of the war becuase of the ease of training) and whilst planes have different qualities, one being faster, the other more maneuverable, they are never-the-less mostly equivalent. In practical terms this leaves the dive as pretty much the only separating factor and it's a biggie.

< Message edited by Yakface -- 9/22/2010 1:39:08 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 234

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/23/2010 11:36:54 AM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.� We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.� You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.� Of course we'll test it first...

Too bad, I rather liked stuff in the patches up to the moment. But I'm not going to accept such a gigantic and, IMO, unwarranted, change in the metagame, for my ongoing PBEMs. Even assuming that it does not break more aspects of the game than it is supposed to fix (considering interactions of bomber operations with altitude alone, never mind MVR/altitude band interaction, this can easily happen), this means that I need to reeavaluate worth of every goddamn fighter in the game - assuming that all the numbers will even be open for proper reevaluation, and not hidden in the code - and that my long-term investments might suddenly become suboptimal. All this work just to appease the whiner team? Unless overwhelming forum consensus within several month after the patch release will confirm that the metagame remains the same, I'll pass.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/23/2010 11:55:58 AM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 235

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/23/2010 12:07:10 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.� We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.� You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.� Of course we'll test it first...

Too bad, I rather liked stuff in the patches up to the moment. But I'm not going to accept such a gigantic and, IMO, unwarranted, change in the metagame, for my ongoing PBEMs. Even assuming that it does not break more aspects of the game than it is supposed to fix (considering interactions of bomber operations with altitude alone, this can easily happen), this means that I need to reeavaluate worth of every goddamn fighter in the game - assuming that all the numbers will even be open for proper reevaluation, and not hidden in the code - and that my long-term investments might suddenly become suboptimal. All this work just to appease the whiner team? Unless overwhelming forum consensus within several month after the patch release will confirm that the metagame remains the same, I'll pass.

I don't think you need to worry - FatR. I am pretty sure there is no intention of doing what was written. Elf's comment was mischievous or maybe facetious. That's why I said I don't think it is helpful as it's going to muddy things up whilst we get into the fiction of debating whether it's a good idea. Which I don't think was helpful in a debate about an important aspect of the game IMO, which, for the most part has been held civily.

Maybe I've got it wrong, but I don't think so. Of course, the number of people that have come out saying....'ooh I like that idea' may mean it now gets serious consideration. In fact it would be good if we could have a categorical yes or no.

< Message edited by Yakface -- 9/23/2010 12:11:42 PM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 236

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/23/2010 12:15:13 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface
You are representing the symptom as the problem. The problem IMO is that having 'the dive' the only thing that matters in air battles.

The dive gives benefits approximately equivalent to extra 15 knots of speed. At most. Likely less. Deliberately giving up the dive in exchange for the optimal altitude band seems to be actively and significantly beneficial for certain planes, like Ki-43-Ic. At least in my Scen 70 game, Japanese planes always sweep at 15k (due to our HR), and Ki-43s actually work better than they ever did in stratosweeps - even against my own airforce in JuanG's BB Enhanced scenario, where all of Japanese planes get about the same 15-knot buff. In fact, during that game Ki-43-Ic were relegated to cannonfodder once Allies got enough Hurricanes, while at 15k they got about 1:1 kills against the same Hurricanes.

Zeros work about as well sweeping at 15k as they did on stratosweeps. Again, in both cases (Japanese sweeping me in BB Enhanced, me sweeping allies in Reluctant Admira) Zeros had about the same small speed buff (although in the latter case it was unintended and somehow managed to creep into stats of Zeros/Oscars/Franks at some point in development - an unpleasant consequence of the several people working on one mod, and not being sufficiently in touch with each other, I guess), and in both cases Zeros dominated early Allied planes to about the same extent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface
Dealing with just the symptom would mean you are effectively changing one god-stat for another. Previously it was max ceiling - in future it would be whatever height you decide is right for the plane.

Actually it means the removal of player input from air tactics. Which might be a good thing or not, depending on whether you like AE's level of micromanagement or not. But it also means a tremendous metagame change in unclear direction and necessity to relearn how the air model works from scratch. And possible breakage of several air model aspects other than A2A calcuations (bombing altitudes, raid coordination). Which is a very bad thing.

EDIT: I do sincerely hope that was a joke.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/23/2010 12:28:09 PM >

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 237

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/23/2010 12:26:29 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface
You are representing the symptom as the problem. The problem IMO is that having 'the dive' the only thing that matters in air battles.

The dive gives benefits approximately equivalent to extra 15 knots of speed. At most. Likely less. Deliberately giving up the dive in exchange for the optimal altitude band seems to be actively and significantly beneficial for certain planes, like Ki-43-Ic. At least in my Scen 70 game, Japanese planes always sweep at 15k (due to HR), and Ki-43s actually work better than they ever did in stratosweeps - even against my own airforce in JuanG's BB Enhanced scenario, where all of Japanese planes get about the same 15-knot buff. In fact, during that game Ki-43-Ic were relegated to cannonfodder once Allies got enough Hurricanes, while at 15k they got about 1:1 kills against the same Hurricanes.

I have to say that is not my experience. Not sure where the 15kt thing is coming from, but it certainly does a lot more than just that. The dive gives you the initiative. Often it puts your aircraft behind the opponents aircraft where your aircraft can't be hit. When you see the message in the replay aircraft 'X' is shooting from behind aircraft 'Y' (in fighter v fighter combat) it is mostly game over for 'Y' - they appear to shoot but naturally never hit.

I certainly agree with you, removing altitude controls from the game would not be a good idea.

< Message edited by Yakface -- 9/23/2010 12:28:14 PM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 238

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/23/2010 12:39:43 PM

FatR

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

To show an example of what I'm talking about, the last large air battle from out current PBEM:

Morning Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. 15k, actually.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 29 That was 54th Sentai, I believe, not the greatest Japanese unit, yet still Japanese fighters have clear edge

Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 11
P-40E Warhawk x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
H81-A3: 3 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed

CAP engaged:
5th FG/17th FS CAF with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000. Note that the planes are being scrambled to the group patrol altitude.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
AVG/2nd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters to 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
15 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes

---------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes Not many Allied fighters managed to intercept before the raid hit the target
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 9
Ki-51 Sonia x 26

Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 5
P-40E Warhawk x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 23
Aircraft Attacking:
23 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
3 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
5th FG/17th FS CAF with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 21000 and 28000. This time fighters are being scrambled at higher altitude for some reason.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
AVG/2nd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 24000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 24000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 80 minutes

--------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes The second bombing raid was no so lucky and got slaughtered, with large losses both on the way in and out

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 6
Ki-51 Sonia x 27

Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 5
P-40E Warhawk x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-51 Sonia: 11 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 29

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
5 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
5th FG/17th FS CAF with H81-A3 (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 21000 and 28000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
1 planes vectored on to bombers
AVG/2nd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 3 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters between 24000 and 28000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 8 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 24000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
1 planes vectored on to bombers

---------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 32

Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 14

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses Revenge!
H81-A3: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 15000 feet
2 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 15000 feet

CAP engaged:
5th FG/17th FS CAF with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 85 minutes Apparently, Allied fighters got scattered around at low altitude due to hunting Sonyas. But numbers and fatuigue now work against them as well.
AVG/2nd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 79 minutes

---------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

---------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 9

Allied aircraft Allies have reformed CAP at the correct altitude and in whatever numbers they still had by afternoon
H81-A3 x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 7

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

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 15000 feet

CAP engaged:
5th FG/17th FS CAF with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Raid is overhead
AVG/2nd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 18000 , scrambling fighters to 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes

Loss numbers roughly reflect the real ratio of exchange, I believe, except you need to multiply them by about 2.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/23/2010 12:42:34 PM >

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 239

RE: High Altitude Sweep Rant - 9/23/2010 12:48:43 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.� We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.� You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.� Of course we'll test it first...

Too bad, I rather liked stuff in the patches up to the moment. But I'm not going to accept such a gigantic and, IMO, unwarranted, change in the metagame, for my ongoing PBEMs. Even assuming that it does not break more aspects of the game than it is supposed to fix (considering interactions of bomber operations with altitude alone, never mind MVR/altitude band interaction, this can easily happen), this means that I need to reeavaluate worth of every goddamn fighter in the game - assuming that all the numbers will even be open for proper reevaluation, and not hidden in the code - and that my long-term investments might suddenly become suboptimal. All this work just to appease the whiner team? Unless overwhelming forum consensus within several month after the patch release will confirm that the metagame remains the same, I'll pass.