Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >>

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 12/7/2002 2:26:30 PM

DSandberg

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus

* snip *

[B]So my suggestion remains, leave the air model alone but slash the ACC of the defensive fire big time. Killing fighters is the job of escorting fighters, bomber defenisve fire is the emergency backup and morale booster. Let us see no more fighter sweeps using strategic bombers ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

IAICATAWTP [I]("I am in complete and total agreement with this post!")[/I]

- David

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 61

- 12/7/2002 4:32:11 PM

DoomedMantis

Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I agree

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 62

- 12/7/2002 9:52:31 PM

HannoMeier

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

From my experience, the B17, B25 and B26 defesive fire cabaility needs to be checked/adjusted down. As reported before, I lost 21 fighters against a B17, B25 and B26 raid for the loss of 2 medium bombers. I am glad, that others also expericend the problem.

Hanno

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 63

- 12/7/2002 10:42:53 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

I think Nikedemus's suggestion on reduceing bomber defensive fire accuracy is the best, simplist, least obtrusive and quickest way to fix this problem. A simple way to implement this might be to introduce a new weapon class to the oob. Something like
50cal.B( bomber ) and 50cal.F ( fighter ). That way you can reduce bomber accuracy without effecting fighter accuracy. Does this make any sense?

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 64

Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 2:30:37 AM

DSandberg

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

Okay, even though I'm staunchly in favor of removing the "bomber sweeps" from the game via whatever method is necessary, for a moment I'm going to play devil's advocate ...

One thing that concerns me about simply reducing the accuracy of the bomber's weapons is if this will allow fighters to get more shots at bombers and hence make the kill ratio of bombers go up. This could easily be a side effect of such a change, and I think an undesirable one.

What I don't know is this: does UV's air combat resolution engine implement any sort of penalty to firing accuracy when a plane is also currently being fired at itself, either from the ground or from other aircraft? My point is this: even though the accuracy of the bomber's fire should be such that only small numbers of attacking aircraft are actually killed, nonetheless the simple volume of defensive fire coming from level bombers (especially en masse) should have effects on disturbing the accuracy of an attacking fighter. A similar effect ought to be present when aircraft (especially those flying at low levels) attack ground or naval targets that are defended by high levels of AAA. Such effects should be much less present when attacking smaller groups of ships or aircraft (or when the defenders have fewer anti-aircraft weapons). This type of penalty to the accuracy of an attacker's shots ought to be present as a significant part of the effects of defensive fire from bombers (or from a fleet, or the ground in general for that matter).

If such effects are actually present in UV, this will hopefully allow defensive fire from bombers to continue to be of equal value in protecting the bombers even while killing a few less fighters outright, which would be a desirable outcome. But if they are not, then I'm concerned that the simple tweak of "lowering bomber fire accuracy" might result in an increase in the bombers that are shot down, to a point beyond realistic levels.

To boil it down, the question is this: can the air combat be tweaked to have fewer attacking fighters shot down by bombers, without simultaneously increasing the number of bombers that are being damaged or destroyed by those fighters (due to them surviving to close in and take their shots)? I.e., can the [U]defensive[/U] value of bombers' guns be preserved at the current level, while lessening only the [U]offensive[/U] value of those same guns?

- David

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 65

Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 3:28:55 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello...

The issue of Japanese fighter to Allied bomber kill ratios is one upon which we are currently working.

I was told that fighters were not effective enough against bombers and to increase the number of bombers shot down. Within the limitations of making consistent changes to all aircraft, when changes were made, I increased the number of bombers being shot down by instructing the fighter pilots to make longer passes, make more passes, continue firing until the fighter was very close (causing them to fly through enemy formations) and to accept greater damage to the plane before breaking off.

This worked and the number of bombers shot down increased. With aircraft such as the Nell, Betty, Kate and TDB, bomber losses due to air-to-air combat increased.

In the case of the Japanese Zero versus Allied medium and heavy bombers, the Allied bomber losses increased, but due to the high durability of these bombers and the fragility of the Zero, in order to kill more bombers, the Zero pilots had to take more risks. Bad tactic. Although highly maneuverable, maneuverability is of limited use against bombers in formation. Durability and firepower become the most important factors. Planes such as the Nick do a better job of tackling Allied bombers, but these are in short supply. Later in the war, the Japanese do build limited numbers of planes better designed to combat well multi-engine, armored planes with strong airframes and lots of guns. But, that doesn't help us here.

I am currently instructing the Zero pilots to try to shoot these tough planes down, but not to kill themselves, in the process. Make fewer passes, start firing earlier and veer off before the bomber guns can effectively engage and not to fly through the enemy formations. These instructions will apply when attacking big, tough, multi-engine planes with lots of guns, such as the B-25, B-26, B-17 and B-24. In combat against weaker aircraft, such as the Beaufort, they are to continue pressing the attack.

I am also making bomber formations take morale checks more often, which if failed, may cause the flight to abort. This is because as the fighters have been pressing the attack more, since version 2.10, and getting more kills, there is no reason to sacrifice the entire bomber group, if heavy combat-air-patrol is encountered.

Hope this helps...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]Okay, even though I'm staunchly in favor of removing the "bomber sweeps" from the game via whatever method is necessary, for a moment I'm going to play devil's advocate ...

One thing that concerns me about simply reducing the accuracy of the bomber's weapons is if this will allow fighters to get more shots at bombers and hence make the kill ratio of bombers go up. This could easily be a side effect of such a change, and I think an undesirable one.

What I don't know is this: does UV's air combat resolution engine implement any sort of penalty to firing accuracy when a plane is also currently being fired at itself, either from the ground or from other aircraft? My point is this: even though the accuracy of the bomber's fire should be such that only small numbers of attacking aircraft are actually killed, nonetheless the simple volume of defensive fire coming from level bombers (especially en masse) should have effects on disturbing the accuracy of an attacking fighter. A similar effect ought to be present when aircraft (especially those flying at low levels) attack ground or naval targets that are defended by high levels of AAA. Such effects should be much less present when attacking smaller groups of ships or aircraft (or when the defenders have fewer anti-aircraft weapons). This type of penalty to the accuracy of an attacker's shots ought to be present as a significant part of the effects of defensive fire from bombers (or from a fleet, or the ground in general for that matter).

If such effects are actually present in UV, this will hopefully allow defensive fire from bombers to continue to be of equal value in protecting the bombers even while killing a few less fighters outright, which would be a desirable outcome. But if they are not, then I'm concerned that the simple tweak of "lowering bomber fire accuracy" might result in an increase in the bombers that are shot down, to a point beyond realistic levels.

To boil it down, the question is this: can the air combat be tweaked to have fewer attacking fighters shot down by bombers, without simultaneously increasing the number of bombers that are being damaged or destroyed by those fighters (due to them surviving to close in and take their shots)? I.e., can the [U]defensive[/U] value of bombers' guns be preserved at the current level, while lessening only the [U]offensive[/U] value of those same guns?

- David [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 66

Bravo! - 12/8/2002 3:33:45 AM

Michael Walker

Posts: 43
Joined: 6/27/2002
Status: offline

Mike, thank you for attention and committment to the game. I hope if some of us seem huffy now and then, you realize it is beause we are addicted to the game and the process of perfecting it occasional leaves us jones'ing while details are ironed out. I don't think anyone should be surprised the came is chronically sold out, I expect any product so supported would be.

Thanks!!!

Mike Walker

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 67

- 12/8/2002 3:58:14 AM

SoulBlazer

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline

Mike, bravo on your intended programing fix. It sounds like just the right kind of small tweak that we need in order to fix this issue, while (hopefully) making both sides happy. I can hardly wait to get the next patch with it! Thanks for listening to us and for explaining what is going on.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 68

- 12/8/2002 4:13:34 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Enter Mike into the Hall of Heros :)

Great news.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 69

Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 4:23:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]Okay, even though I'm staunchly in favor of removing the "bomber sweeps" from the game via whatever method is necessary, for a moment I'm going to play devil's advocate ...

One thing that concerns me about simply reducing the accuracy of the bomber's weapons is if this will allow fighters to get more shots at bombers and hence make the kill ratio of bombers go up. This could easily be a side effect of such a change, and I think an undesirable one.

What I don't know is this: does UV's air combat resolution engine implement any sort of penalty to firing accuracy when a plane is also currently being fired at itself, either from the ground or from other aircraft? My point is this: even though the accuracy of the bomber's fire should be such that only small numbers of attacking aircraft are actually killed, nonetheless the simple volume of defensive fire coming from level bombers (especially en masse) should have effects on disturbing the accuracy of an attacking fighter. A similar effect ought to be present when aircraft (especially those flying at low levels) attack ground or naval targets that are defended by high levels of AAA. Such effects should be much less present when attacking smaller groups of ships or aircraft (or when the defenders have fewer anti-aircraft weapons). This type of penalty to the accuracy of an attacker's shots ought to be present as a significant part of the effects of defensive fire from bombers (or from a fleet, or the ground in general for that matter).

If such effects are actually present in UV, this will hopefully allow defensive fire from bombers to continue to be of equal value in protecting the bombers even while killing a few less fighters outright, which would be a desirable outcome. But if they are not, then I'm concerned that the simple tweak of "lowering bomber fire accuracy" might result in an increase in the bombers that are shot down, to a point beyond realistic levels.

To boil it down, the question is this: can the air combat be tweaked to have fewer attacking fighters shot down by bombers, without simultaneously increasing the number of bombers that are being damaged or destroyed by those fighters (due to them surviving to close in and take their shots)? I.e., can the [U]defensive[/U] value of bombers' guns be preserved at the current level, while lessening only the [U]offensive[/U] value of those same guns?

- David [/B][/QUOTE]

I dont think lowering bomber D-Fire acc would necesarily increase bomber casaulties to an unreasonable level if at all. After all, Japanese bomber casualties (unescorted) vs Allied fighters feels about right and 2nd'ly, the reduction of D-fire would not affect the ARMOR or DUR ratings of the Allied medium and heavy bombers, nor would it address the low firepower (against heavy bombers) of the A6M and worse, the KI-43.

My focus on D-fire ACC was due to the long standing issue of small and medium unescorted bombing raids being able to continually punch the clock and go to work against distant assets regardless of whether there was a strong CAP or not. Its frustrating to see one's CAP continually not even hit and damage such inviting targets. As said repeatedly, I expect to see a high degree of resiliancy in Allied medium and heavys, but not the equivilent of a charm spell that protects them from harm ;) Besides which, Japanese and Allied accounts that i've read do not stack the Allied medium bombers in the same DUR club as the heavies, though obviously they were in a better boat than the IJN varients (who also proved tougher than most think too....i finally understand Joe Foss's comments now regarding the Beatty)

The vulnerablility of medium bombers in general was a central reason behind the SOPAC campaign to slowly draw a noose around Rabaul.....so that the fighter escorts could get in there and protect them as well as attrition those enemy fighters.

Mike's news is exciting, sounds like the next patch will have things addressed...looking forward to it with great anticipation......that and some carrier reinforcments.....currently i'm fuming at Normura with one operational carrier vs 6 IJN carriers sticking their tongues out at me from Truk and Rabaul.....meanwhile PM continues to be pounded by 100+ bomber raids and now Lae and Gili Gili are joining in on the fun. SC-19 is certainly giving me a run for my money. Only poor spot via the AI is that for some reason its not assaulting PM when it's ripe for the picking, allowing me to hold on by a toenail.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 70

Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 4:24:20 AM

DSandberg

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]I am currently instructing the Zero pilots to try to shoot these tough planes down, but not to kill themselves, in the process. Make fewer passes, start firing earlier and veer off before the bomber guns can effectively engage and not to fly through the enemy formations. These instructions will apply when attacking big, tough, multi-engine planes with lots of guns, such as the B-25, B-26, B-17 and B-24. In combat against weaker aircraft, such as the Beaufort, they are to continue pressing the attack.[/B][/QUOTE]

Excellent! Your approach to the problem is clearly far more in-depth than the "make all bomber guns weaker" approach would have been. It sounds like it should work very well indeed, as it addresses the core behavior that is causing the high fighter attrition rates vs heavy bombers, rather than just the symptoms.

Thanks much for the update!

- David

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 71

Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 4:35:11 AM

DSandberg

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]I dont think lowering bomber D-Fire acc would necesarily increase bomber casaulties to an unreasonable level if at all. After all, Japanese bomber casualties (unescorted) vs Allied fighters feels about right and 2nd'ly, the reduction of D-fire would not affect the ARMOR or DUR ratings of the Allied medium and heavy bombers, nor would it address the low firepower (against heavy bombers) of the A6M and worse, the KI-43.[/B][/QUOTE]

Mike's post clearly makes this discussion somewhat pointless, but I do want to clarify one thing: while, as you say, neither the ARMOR/DUR ratings of the Allied bombers nor the low firepower of the JPN fighters would be altered, the one thing that I think could potentially have changed would be the number of shots, and especially close-in shots, that the attacking fighters get to take at the bombers, due to the better survivability of the fighters in such a matchup. I think this could easily have resulted in higher Allied bomber casualties than the current level.

This presupposes that you feel, as do I, that the current 2.11 patch has the bomber destruction/damage levels on BOTH sides of the conflict (not just JPN) just about right.

It's a moot point now, because I think we're agreed that Mike is onto a very satisfactory solution to the problem.

- David

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 72

- 12/8/2002 4:40:36 AM

USSMaine

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/23/2001
From: Maine (USA)
Status: offline

Okay silly question time - will we need to restart our AI/PBEM games for this to take effect ? Just curious so I know whether to continue with them - although I can certainly use the training ;-)

Great news on the approach to the update though and I can't wait ! Thanks Matrix !

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 73

Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 4:45:15 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]

Mike's post clearly makes this discussion somewhat pointless, but I do want to clarify one thing: while, as you say, neither the ARMOR/DUR ratings of the Allied bombers nor the low firepower of the JPN fighters would be altered, the one thing that I think could potentially have changed would be the number of shots, and especially close-in shots, that the attacking fighters get to take at the bombers, due to the better survivability of the fighters in such a matchup. I think this could easily have resulted in higher Allied bomber casualties than the current level.

This presupposes that you feel, as do I, that the current 2.11 patch has the bomber destruction/damage levels on BOTH sides of the conflict (not just JPN) just about right.

It's a moot point now, because I think we're agreed that Mike is onto a very satisfactory solution to the problem.

- David [/B][/QUOTE]

agreed. We are pretty much in on the same track here. I guess my tail hugging maneuvers are generated by concern that the new solution will be to reduce potential hits on unescorted bombers bringing things back closer to the 2.0 era. I just dont want to see unescorted bombers, and particularily medium bombers being able to ignore strong CAP's again as in previous patches. Thus my concern that the "solution" Mike has hinted at would involve a bunch of "enemy fighter driven off by defensive fire" msgs. My readings on Pacific war bomber combat did not indicate alot of this happening, particularily Allied vs Japanese bombers. Most were able to conduct their runs, regardless of what the enemy gunners attempted.....it just turned out that Japanese bombers didn't always blow up or catch fire the way many think they did, but persistant and multiple attacks would eventually bring a decent number down.

Same for the Allied bombers....They're even tougher and of course, have armor plate, so while i think they can and should be "hit" at the level seen in 2.11, They just wont go down as much as IJN bombers will. Those hits will ensure disruption and logistical issues though which i feel would help curb player agressiveness not to mention the 'gamey' use bombers as fighter attrtion weapons. The bomber abort msg is already in the game and works great but it alone wont curb player agressiveness if he or she sees that the bombers are still mostly immune to enemy defences.

Guess what i'm saying is, "offensive" or "defensive" i dont feel that gunfire from bombers isn't half as accurate as those same weapons mounted on the wing of a dedicated figther with a trained pilot. Hence, along with what Mike is suggesting i do feel that D-fire ACC should not be at the same level as those weapons when mounted on a fighter and controlled by an experienced pilot.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 74

Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 5:14:12 AM

CapAndGown

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]

Guess what i'm saying is, "offensive" or "defensive" i dont feel that gunfire from bombers isn't half as accurate as those same weapons mounted on the wing of a dedicated figther with a trained pilot. Hence, along with what Mike is suggesting i do feel that D-fire ACC should not be at the same level as those weapons when mounted on a fighter and controlled by an experienced pilot. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. I think the contemplated change may just allow the bombers to get off scott free. They may abort, but there is nothing to stop them from coming back and doing another fighter sweep all over. Reducing their accuracy some would allow the fighters to press their attacks a little bit longer.

I should note, that if the accuracy rating was involved in the change, then this would not effect on going games. Only new games would benefit from this change.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 75

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 5:28:17 AM

DSandberg

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]I agree. I think the contemplated change may just allow the bombers to get off scott free. They may abort, but there is nothing to stop them from coming back and doing another fighter sweep all over. Reducing their accuracy some would allow the fighters to press their attacks a little bit longer.[/B][/QUOTE]

I can understand your point. I am still assuming that Mike's statement "(fighters) start firing earlier and veer off before the bomber guns can effectively engage and (don't) fly through the enemy formations" means that the actual shots that the fighters do get to take against heavy bombers will be decreased to a far lesser degree than will the defensive fire from such bombers. But I can also see where a mixture of Mike's solution and a modest reduction of accuracy for heavy bombers' guns could be a good approach too. I don't want to see the bombers become either helpless victims or invulnerable giants as part of the quest to solve the "bomber sweep" problem.

- David

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 76

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 5:31:56 AM

dpstafford

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]I should note, that if the accuracy rating was involved in the change, then this would not effect on going games. Only new games would benefit from this change. [/B][/QUOTE]
This would be critically bad news for the hundreds of PBEM games on hold waiting for this patch.............

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 77

re: Bombing of the Reich - 12/8/2002 5:48:21 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

The various alterations to the strafe routine in BOTR made certain
that it was futile to play against a human as the germans.

I offer a simple comparison:

Look at the strafe routine from Battle of Britain
compare it to the strafe routine from BOTR.

The entire strafe concept is shown for what it is, a play balance sham. It made a good game bad. Why bother carefully husbanding your precious replacements when ONE squadron
of 16 spitfire can slip right in and destroy 75 planes no matter
what the flak coverage? It is absurd.

British planes were not made of concrete and German planes
of crystal china.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 78

- 12/8/2002 5:52:39 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

I like the proposed change. One concern: If hte Zeros are rolling their 'to hit' numbers well, and the bombers are having a bad day, I would hope that the zeros would keep pressing their attacks as they do in the current code at least until they start to lose a few planes. I think that would be preferable to letting the bombers through.

Also, I hope the change only affects fighters vs heavy bombers. I don't want my zeros breaking off and letting dive bombers through.

Yamamoto

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 79

Solution - 12/8/2002 6:02:22 AM

Michael Walker

Posts: 43
Joined: 6/27/2002
Status: offline

I am personally amazed the Matrix has developed a model for each individual air combat. As much as we may all want, I don't think there is any way they can account for every possible variation of combat conditions. My 2 cents worth on this is that there is a clear consensus on what the solution ought to include

1. A new model for air combats v. Heavy bombers, which presumable would include nearly every twin engine Allied AC, possibly not the Hudson -- perhaps there could simply be a cutoff number of defensive fire which results modified tactics?

2. I would also strongly support changing the accuracy figures for defensive guns. Does anyone here remember those old gunnery games they had in the arcades about 30 years ago, the ones with the handles you twisted to move the guns? Jeez, it was murder to hit anything. For that matter, I don't suppose flight sims are really a source of information in and of themelves, but they do teach you how tough the geometry of hitting a moving target is from a flexible waste gun.

Mike

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 80

- 12/8/2002 6:07:21 AM

wie201

Posts: 793
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline

Thanks Mike for looking into this! I posted some passages from Edward Jablonski in the "Can you say open beta" thread. Reading that (I know it's only one source, but he does site multiple actions) and looking at the results people give, it seems as if the smaller actions (less than 20-25 planes total) under 2.11 are very close to what Jablonski cites. It is the larger actions that seem to need adjusting (and not just the Zero losses).

When Major General George Kenney took over as air commander for the SW Pacific on August 4, 1942, he found that his bomber crews "frequently abandoned missions when Japanese aircraft intercepted them, fearing that a single bullet would detonate either the auxiliary fuel tanks or the bomb load, No one thought to tell them that was not neccessarily true." He also complained that the mechanics did not know the proper maintainance proceedures, leaving many planes out of action (often 50 percent). His increased leadership skills appear to have lead to the results cited in the other thread I mentioned.

Jablonski also writes that the Zero pilots "respected the big bomber (B-17), although many had been worn out by constant use."

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 81

Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 6:13:11 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]Hello...

The issue of Japanese fighter to Allied bomber kill ratios is one upon which we are currently working.

Hope this helps...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[/B][/QUOTE]

I "hope this helps," too, and "hope the result doesn't f*ck everything up again." I like v. 2.11.

Am I the only one who is tired of all the talk and purported analysis that may, or may not, lead to improvements in the game? Is it only this much-maligned contributor who hopes that he (and his PBEM friends) can finally play a full campaign game without worrying about what the changes wrought by the most current patch will do? I have adjusted to so many changes that I had to strip down and look in the mirror last night to make sure that I was still the same stud I always was ...

If I am off base here, sorry, I'll shut up. Just wondered if anybody else out there feels the same way.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 82

re: Pasternaski - 12/8/2002 6:21:02 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Empirisism takes time. These guys seem to be doing the best they can. That is 'my' opinion. They are alot more responsive
than EA I can tell you.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 83

- 12/8/2002 6:30:46 AM

USSMaine

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/23/2001
From: Maine (USA)
Status: offline

Ummmmmmm - I've had BTR since shortly after it came out and I don't know about you but when my planes sweep they sure take losses strafing enemy bases..... BoB was another story....

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 84

re: BOTR - 12/8/2002 6:38:08 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Try playing the Germans and placing all elements of JG-26
on one airbase. Now you can place as many flak as you wish
on that airbase. Sooner or later, usually in really bad weather,
one squadron of spitfires will lollygag on it, completely ignore
the flak and make hash out of your elite vets. There is no defense
in the game. In reality there were locations that were strictly
avoided because of heavy flak. But not in the game.
(for the purposes of strafing that is)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 85

- 12/8/2002 6:52:28 AM

SoulBlazer

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline

Paster, I do hope you realize how hard Matrix is working. I do wish you'd stop whining so much -- you and DP. You have been very helpfull in providing info to Matrix, but realize this is a WORK in progress. The game is fully playable now as it is -- I'm not stopping my PBEM's no matter what happens, and yes, I have both sides. I don't want to tell you to shut up -- that's too harsh and you don't deserve that. Just realize what is going on. I think 2.11 was the best patch yet (and yes, I've had acceptable losses as Japan.)

Let's give some support for Matrix here and what they are trying to do, and what we are asking of them, guys! :D

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 86

re:botr OT - 12/8/2002 6:58:17 AM

USSMaine

Posts: 213
Joined: 12/23/2001
From: Maine (USA)
Status: offline

There is a number of guns issue that most continuing players are aware of - if the total number of guns (and ballons) is greater than 255 I think it wraps around into negative integer space - that may be what you are seeing. I know in my PBEM game going on for 12 months real time as the Axis I haven't seen many sweeps since spring (probably 3-4 months into the game). Early version especially before 1.04 had problems but they've been mostly worked out - at least to the satisfaction for many players.

Also having finished 2 campaigns against the AI, one as Allies and one as Axis I don't think the game is perfect but it does a lot of things really, really well and there is nothing like it out there that fills the gap in my opinion.

And I can sympathize with your frustation at having a ton of planes lost on the ground. Been there done that ......

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 87

- 12/8/2002 7:02:39 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Paster, I do hope you realize how hard Matrix is working. I do wish you'd stop whining so much -- you and DP. You have been very helpfull in providing info to Matrix, but realize this is a WORK in progress. The game is fully playable now as it is -- I'm not stopping my PBEM's no matter what happens, and yes, I have both sides. I don't want to tell you to shut up -- that's too harsh and you don't deserve that. Just realize what is going on. I think 2.11 was the best patch yet (and yes, I've had acceptable losses as Japan.)

Let's give some support for Matrix here and what they are trying to do, and what we are asking of them, guys! :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with a single thing you have to say - except that whining is something I do not do. If you can find an example, I wish you would point it out to me.

I am not criticizing Matrix. Anyone who has read my posts understands that. Matrix is not the problem, if you catch my drift.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 88

- 12/8/2002 7:04:08 AM

SoulBlazer

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline

I'm afraid I don't.....I've always been on the daft side. :) I guess that's why I went into history and libraries. :) Not much in the way of creative thinking.

Let's also realize it may take a month or more before we see another patch.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 89

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate - 12/8/2002 7:08:17 AM

David Heath