Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Hi guys. The dialogue of the past couple of days has been wonderful. Unfortunately, it's going in a direction I'd rather not visit.

We now know that Kamikaze effectiveness is based primarily on Pilot Quality, Air Speed, Maneuverability and Durability. The first has nothing to do with the airframe so I've looked at the remaining 3 to see what airframes might be the most suitable to be used as Kamikazes.

I did something pretty simple to start. There are 164 different Japanese airframes in scenario 1. I looked at the top 30 for each of the 3 categories to see if anything showed up in all of them.

Here are the upper and lower limits for the top 30 in the categories:

Speed: 559-373
Maneuverability: 49-28
Durability: 48-36

There were no airframes that showed up in the top 30 in all 3 categories and only 4 airframes that showed up in the top 30 in 2 of the categories:

Ki-84r: Speed #10, Man #30
Ki-93-Ib: Speed #16, Dur #21
Ki-93-Ia: Speed #17, Dur #22
Ki-102c: Speed #30, Dur #28

Fighters were most common in the speed (late fighters) and maneuverability (early fighters) categories while the 4E flying boats and 2E bombers/transports were primarily in the durability category. No surprises there.

To me, it seems that if you want to focus on a particular airframe for use as a Kamikaze, you need to focus on one of the three categories and train your pilots.

My initial thoughts are to either focus on maneuverability or durability for Kamikazes because I'm not all that excited in using my late war fighters as Kamikazes.

Note that the Ki-115b and Toka are tied for #18 in the speed category.

What to you all think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

In my game in Jan/45 I'm making only 350 Franks, but I've continued making other planes because I know they can still be effective. Making 3,000 fighters a month means you're probably also losing that many!! I wouldn't want to plan for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred

I appreciate this reference. We need more Roman war references (any of them) and fewer Civil War references in these parts

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

Alfred

Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.

The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred

I appreciate this reference. We need more Roman war references (any of them) and fewer Civil War references in these parts

I will hurl someone from the Tarpeian Rock if we don't have a turn soon.

Created by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dasboot1960

MIKE SOLLI - Thank you for your patience with these last several pages. Although almost entirely off topic to your AAR, they are illuminating, and now easily referenceable, since I have you bookmarked. I don't know where I come down as to what should or should not be public, but thank you again for not making a big fuss about them surfacing here. Got a new turn report?

Created by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

Alfred

Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.

The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred

Sorry, no sale. To say Nimitz wouldn't get information on the Japanese Combined Fleet's Location/Speed and Direction due to "abstraction" yet Nimitz would get tons of information how many torpedoes the USS Tang launched at the PB Osaka is so contradictory it defies the most vivid imagination.

Intel Officer: "Sir, we found KB!!!"

Nimitz: "How many torpedoes Mush launch at that AKL?"

Intel Officer: "Don't you want to know where KB is and where they are going?"

Nimitz: "No, I want to know about that AKL and how many fish hit her"

Yes, you're asking us to believe a conversation like that happened or would have.

That is laughable.


The problem is you hide behind "Abstraction" a lot. Too much actually.

But keep spinning, you're the best at it.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

Alfred

Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.

The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred

Sorry, no sale. To say Nimitz wouldn't get information on the Japanese Combined Fleet's Location/Speed and Direction due to "abstraction" yet Nimitz would get tons of information how many torpedoes the USS Tang launched at the PB Osaka is so contradictory it defies the most vivid imagination.

Intel Officer: "Sir, we found KB!!!"

Nimitz: "How many torpedoes Mush launch at that AKL?"

Intel Officer: "Don't you want to know where KB is and where they are going?"

Nimitz: "No, I want to know about that AKL and how many fish hit her"

Yes, you're asking us to believe a conversation like that happened or would have.

That is laughable.


The problem is you hide behind "Abstraction" a lot. Too much actually.

But keep spinning, you're the best at it.

Just don't play. Seems WitP-AE is not a game for you.

It is Strategic/Operational wargame with some tactical aspects you can change. Apparently not your cup of tea.

Your understanding of WitP-AE as wargame seems to be sorely lacking, so I'd kindly ask you to stop deriding people who actually understand it decently well or better (e.g. Alfred).

If you don't understand difference between Combat report and Operational intelligence...then I am sorry to inform you that you are beyond redemption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?

In the Intel Report, the "Group Reinforcement Schedule" shows the base of arrival. The fact that it is stuck on two days before arrival might indicate lack of HI or Aircraft/Engine points to finish creating the squadron(s). Check pools for availability of the required aircraft types.

Created by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?

quote:

In the real war the Ryuho was torpedoed by a sub before getting an air group and after repairs operated Hiyo's air group for much of 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Squads from reserve are supposed to "poof" into existence. Pool status shouldn't matter a whit.

Created by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Squads from reserve are supposed to "poof" into existence. Pool status shouldn't matter a whit.

Yep. I have this sneaky suspicion that Ryuho may have to be in Tokyo to receive the air groups. I'll let you guys know when (if) she ever gets her air groups.

quote:

Mike Solli
I’m still stumped about Ryuho’s air unit’s non-arrival. I hope the carrier doesn’t have to go back to Tokyo for them to arrive.

quote:

crsutton

The game allows your changes in production but most OOB arrival schedules are based on the actual historical timetable.

quote:

wdolson
In the real war the Ryuho was torpedoed by a sub before getting an air group and after repairs operated Hiyo's air group for much of 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn



Looking in the editor, Ryuho's air groups have a "Delay"= 431101. Whereas most carrier air groups have no Delay. May be different in depending on the scenario.

Created by the amazing Dixie

quote:

Four IMBs are going to the Philippines. They will eventually become divisions (100, 102, 103 & 105) and for a decent chunk of the defenses there. (My intent is to defend only Manila, Clark Field and Bataan.

quote:

Mindinao, with no RR, and all bases are coastal. Very susceptible to naval bombardment.

quote:

Panay has RR, but all 3 are coastal. Susceptible to naval bombardment.

quote:

Luzon has both Cabanatuan and Manila. Cabanatuan is inland and on the RR, Manila is protected by Bataan.

quote:

My concern is that with recon and naval bombardment, the allies could neutralize IJ airpower in both Panay and Mindinao and keep it that way. Not suggesting that there are no counters for this, there are. But with limited resources, do you use those counters here or in Hokkaido? I tend to use them in Hokkaido …