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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 7/18/2003 9:26:35 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]This, however, raises an entirely different question. Is Japanese flak TOO ineffective in game terms at lower altitudes? Perhaps it is. I really don't feel qualified to judge that and don't know how anyone really could without a heck of a lot of research that is probably almost impossible to do 58 years after the war ended in the Pacific. I'm sure someone out there will have all the answers though! [/B]

In one game I am playing as the IJM, the Allied player has been consistently bombing Rabaul with B-17s at 6000 ft. The typical mission is 6-12 planes. I have 3 'base' AA units in Rabaul. Routinely 3-4 B-17s will be damaged and I get an occasional (but rare) kill.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 181
- 7/18/2003 9:36:54 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
The only thing I find a tad strange is the disruption. Seems awfully high. Can't see guns/crews going NS that quick. Hell, I remember having the "splats" for over a week and I still made every mission, day or night. Made a lot of steam as it was February!!!:D Was so cold the leveling bubbles on the sights were shattering. Had to "ride the trails" because we could not effectively dig into the frozen ground.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 182
- 7/18/2003 9:45:27 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
Hard core!

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 183
First US bombing mission of WW2 - 7/18/2003 9:56:52 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Wednesday 10 December 1941
B-17's, P-40's, and P-35's attack a convoy landing troops and equipment at Vigan and at Aparri in N.Luzon. 1 transport at Vigan is destroyed. The strikes include the much publicized attack of Captain Colin P Kelly Jr of the 14th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 7th Bombardment Group (Heavy) on a warship off Aparri. Captain Kelly, who is killed when his B-17 is shot down by fighters as he is returning to Clark Field, is later posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) for destroying a battleship. However, later information reveals that he attacked the heavy cruiser ASHIGARA, probably scoring near misses.

(also on Dec 10 Prince of Wales and Repulse meet their doom.
SBD's from Enterprise catch IJN SS I-70 on surface and sink it (first vessel at sea sank in WW2 by USN CV)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 184
- 7/18/2003 11:06:30 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ...[/B]

His lack of tact has so far managed to create the opposite effect of what he desired, for what it's worth. Rather than getting the testers to give consideration to his argument by presenting them with some semblance of decorum he has stripped himself of any potential influence he might have had by selecting the tactic he did. I dont think I'll be seeing a thread on the development forum anytime soon addressing his 'improvement' suggestions.



[B]Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...[/B]

We just have to accept that the game isn't going to be everything to everybody. They are trying **** hard to make the best possible game they can. We have to meet them part way and make an effort to enjoy the game for what it is. The developers have bent over backwards to listen to the community here on what should go into the game. They aren't going to be able to squeeze it all in and get the game published before 2010. So we have an editor, we can make house rules, etc...the tools are there to make it the game you want to play. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why should I try and sway the testers? Do you actually think I care what they think? Not so =)
I am more concerned with being RIGHT than persuading someone.

If the testers refuse to investigate the issue, then when the game is released (assuming it is) I will buy a copy and prove the point myself, all they while posting how the playtesters didnt bother to catch it because of some obvious bias.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 185
Testers - 7/18/2003 11:50:43 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Why should I try and sway the testers? Do you actually think I care what they think? Not so =)
I am more concerned with being RIGHT than persuading someone.

If the testers refuse to investigate the issue, then when the game is released (assuming it is) I will buy a copy and prove the point myself, all they while posting how the playtesters didnt bother to catch it because of some obvious bias. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, If Satan posted a bug report or had a problem with the way the game plays I'd take a look at the issue. I check everything I read. If I get the same results I post that fact inside the private forum. If I don't I post that. I don't post things on the public forum while they are active in the private forum.

You know what gets items looked at by testers? The testers play the game and see something and think "That ain't right" Then they post a comment in the private forum. When enough testers get together and say "That ain't right" they post a report. The item gets added to a list (That currently could wrap around the globe several times)
The more intense the item effects the game the higher it moves on the list. When a large number of player post a common problem that also gets the testers checking. I can state for a fact a large number of B-17 versus TF missions were run by me before during and after 2.30
No post about a bug or game play problem will ever be ignored by myself because of it's origin. (Or if I agree with it) I always go and look at the issue. If I think it merits further study I post that in the private forum. There have been many items tested that first appeared as a post by a non tester.

Nothing created by man. Can ever satisify every critic. I can say I feel the Matrix/2by3 people are themselves hard to satisfy and the product is not placed before the public untill they are satisfied.
They have in fact changed items that they (and the testers) were happy with but enough people felt otherwise items were changed to comply with popular demand. (and during this process many new items were added outright that were not planned for UV)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 186
Re: Testers - 7/18/2003 12:04:42 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, If Satan posted a bug report or had a problem with the way the game plays I'd take a look at the issue. I check everything I read. If I get the same results I post that fact inside the private forum. If I don't I post that. I don't post things on the public forum while they are active in the private forum.

You know what gets items looked at by testers? The testers play the game and see something and think "That ain't right" Then they post a comment in the private forum. When enough testers get together and say "That ain't right" they post a report. The item gets added to a list (That currently could wrap around the globe several times)
The more intense the item effects the game the higher it moves on the list. When a large number of player post a common problem that also gets the testers checking. I can state for a fact a large number of B-17 versus TF missions were run by me before during and after 2.30
No post about a bug or game play problem will ever be ignored by myself because of it's origin. (Or if I agree with it) I always go and look at the issue. If I think it merits further study I post that in the private forum. There have been many items tested that first appeared as a post by a non tester.

Nothing created by man. Can ever satisify every critic. I can say I feel the Matrix/2by3 people are themselves hard to satisfy and the product is not placed before the public untill they are satisfied.
They have in fact changed items that they (and the testers) were happy with but enough people felt otherwise items were changed to comply with popular demand. (and during this process many new items were added outright that were not planned for UV) [/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami, your too much of a wargamer to allow a bias to affect
your real judgement.

My last post was addressed to Sniggy.

I am just as much a wargammer as you are Mogami.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 187
The Spider's Bite - 7/18/2003 12:30:17 PM   
CEDeaton


Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline
Is there a way to set ignore for posts that quote something you've chosen to ignore? BTW, Satan appears to be an apt comparison, Mo.




The Spider's Bite from http://www.nartoomid.com/truthlie.htm

-------------------------

Some people just have to be right
No matter what they sacrifice.
A truth into a lie

Behind the mask they hide
Swelled up with blinded pride.
A comment becomes a story
The author in a blur
The consequences don't seem as big
As the lie they twist and turn.

A friend for a traitor
A kiss for a bite
The guilty one tears things down
Out of self-hate and spite.

While the innocent heart
Continues to grow
by everything they say
The guilty will always spin their web
As if nothing were wrong
And when the venom builds up
If they are cornered again by pride
You better run as fast as you can
Or be the victim of their lies.

Sound like anyone we know?

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 188
Re: The Spider's Bite - 7/18/2003 12:32:02 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[B]Is there a way to set ignore for posts that quote something you've chosen to ignore? BTW, Satan appears to be an apt comparison, Mo.




The Spider's Bite from http://www.nartoomid.com/truthlie.htm

-------------------------

Some people just have to be right
No matter what they sacrifice.
A truth into a lie

Behind the mask they hide
Swelled up with blinded pride.
A comment becomes a story
The author in a blur
The consequences don't seem as big
As the lie they twist and turn.

A friend for a traitor
A kiss for a bite
The guilty one tears things down
Out of self-hate and spite.

While the innocent heart
Continues to grow
by everything they say
The guilty will always spin their web
As if nothing were wrong
And when the venom builds up
If they are cornered again by pride
You better run as fast as you can
Or be the victim of their lies.

Sound like anyone we know? [/B][/QUOTE]

You could of course actually ignore them =)
Instead of pretending to =)

'And the light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not'

BTW BOTH Ross and Vic have stated they dont wish to see
flames in the forum.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 189
- 7/18/2003 1:37:41 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
Chiteng, I went through a couple hundred old posts of yours in the last 2 days... All I came up with was this, and it doesn't seem too impossible to me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 13
A6M2 Zero x 44

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Hakusan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizona Maru
AP Nichibi Maru

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 26

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 7000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet

------


__________________

You said you posted more AARs, but I think I did a pretty good job looking. You really do have to post some more of the results you're claiming or else I think you need to stop arguing - otherwise you won't have any credibility...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 190
- 7/18/2003 2:03:37 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Chiteng, I went through a couple hundred old posts of yours in the last 2 days... All I came up with was this, and it doesn't seem too impossible to me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 13
A6M2 Zero x 44

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Hakusan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizona Maru
AP Nichibi Maru

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 26

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 7000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet

------


__________________

You said you posted more AARs, but I think I did a pretty good job looking. You really do have to post some more of the results you're claiming or else I think you need to stop arguing - otherwise you won't have any credibility... [/B][/QUOTE]

I never stop arguing, when I know I am right.
Why run tests only to be accused of fabricating results?
You know that would be the next flame =)

The AAR you did find wasnt a test, it was from a game with Drex
and Myself.

Please note the number of interceptors and total lack of result as well.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 191
- 7/18/2003 2:30:27 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
For those with an interest:

This thread was dead and buried for over two months, w/o
anyone missing it, UNTIL this individual insisted on ressurecting it
CraigDeaton

Since that time every post I have made has been soley to defend myself when I have been attacked.

If that were to stop happening, then we can assume the thread would again vanish.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 192
Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/18/2003 10:50:52 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[This, however, raises an entirely different question. Is Japanese flak TOO ineffective in game terms at lower altitudes? Perhaps it is. I really don't feel qualified to judge that and don't know how anyone really could without a heck of a lot of research that is probably almost impossible to do 58 years after the war ended in the Pacific. I'm sure [I]someone[/I] :rolleyes: out there will have all the answers though!

I'm really not trying to "stir the pot" here. Since the issue won't die, and multiple people seem to have come up with their own house rules, it's clear (to me anyway) that there may be some degree of validity that something is in fact a bit "broken". I'm just not convinced it's the Fort's vulnerability, so I'm trying to think rationally of what else it might be. [/B][/QUOTE]

You rabble rouser you ! ;)

The answer to your question is "yes" and "no"

Land based flak against large level bombers attacking at consistantly low altitudes is too ineffective. By this I dont mean that dozens of planes should go crashing down to earth when it is attempted, but rather, when attacking a strongly defended base, there should be a more tangible result of ignoring the defense than with what is usually seen. More 'hits' should result from such tactics as even a pop gun can contribute something if the bombers attack low enough, resulting in more damages, more kills but most importantly more disruption to the bombers and their resulting accuracy. If this were coupled with longer down times for damaged planes that come back after the mission i think we would find that balance of pros and cons that is missing and thus the need for more restrictive house rules would be lessened. So for example, i would expect Forts to remain very tough opponents, however even a Fort is going to have to spend some considerable down time if it's fuslage has been shot full of holes, some crew wounded and a bunch of parts/maintenance required to bring it back up to specs.

ship based flak is too effective all around (and so is early war USN for that matter) However a signifigant cavet again must be that, if the player employs ultra low level bombing attacks, there again should, like the land component still be a sig bonus to flak effects and resulting disruption assuming that the TF in question has signifigant AA to bring to play. Level bombers attacking at 100 - 1000 feet make big lumbering targets. Part of the same thing that makes torpedo bombers so vulnerable, they have to come in straight and low and that makes the gunners job easier. I expect Allied planes to be tougher but again even a tough plane shot full of holes is going to be unavail for some time in the future.

As Bergerud put it. Tactical bombers faced a serious threat from AA, less so medium bombers, and less again big strategic bombers however it was also pointed out that altitude was used as cushion to help enhance the increased DUR and redundant systems benefit of bigger bombers. the USAAF certainly did not go charging in from the get go at 6000 feet, during the daytime, regardless of enemy flak and fighter strength and just have at it.

Consistantly attacking at unsafe altitudes against heavy AA concentrations can and should reap a consequence from the player.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 193
- 7/19/2003 12:28:06 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline
[B]Land based flak against large level bombers attacking at consistantly low altitudes is too ineffective. By this I dont mean that dozens of planes should go crashing down to earth when it is attempted, but rather, when attacking a strongly defended base, there should be a more tangible result of ignoring the defense than with what is usually seen. More 'hits' should result from such tactics as even a pop gun can contribute something if the bombers attack low enough, resulting in more damages, more kills but most importantly more disruption to the bombers and their resulting accuracy.[/B]

Also, radar at the base should have an effect on flak because it would allow the base to be on alert, people at their battlestations, know the direction of the attack, etc.

Right now all AAA has an effectiveness rating, however I think it should vary by altitude. A handful of ma-deuces aren't going to do much against a formation of heavy bombers at high altitude, but they'd do pretty well against a fighter at low altitude. Also, the .50 cal is going to be harder to take out than a fixed AA artillery position because it is a smaller target and one guy like Rambo can run around shooting from the hip and taking out 3 or 4 fighters by himself.
I agree, just the presence of strong flak should have an efffect on bomber accuracy whether they manage to score hits or not, because formations would intentionally avoid high flak areas if possible (at least in Europe they did).

The issue with playing around with the repair rate is the fact that supplies are generic, air support is generic, engineer are generic... Let's say you have adequate repair supplies, air crews, etc in Brisbane repair 10 B-17s a day. Nobody would argue that a large city full of competent civilian labor and all the proper ingredients would have no problem repairing 10 aircraft on a given day if they had the parts.

Then you have a base like Lunga, and you also have plenty of supplies and air crews there. But the supplies might be rations and ammunition for the marines fighting there, bombs for the planes, etc. The likelihood of having enough airplane parts to repair 10 B-17s is unlikely. But since the system is generic, you have the supplies, air crews, large enough base, and poof, you've got your repaired planes.

My question is, what do you base the repair rates on, if you mess around with them? How would you determine how many planes can be repaired on a given day?

[B] I expect Allied planes to be tougher but again even a tough plane shot full of holes is going to be unavail for some time in the future.[/B]

Japanese planes like the Betty and Nell were designed with the idea that they would have to fight in the Pacific, hence over enormous distances. This is why they were basically giant fuel cans with a propellor which, when shot, would immediately burst into flames like a Hollywood style explosion. The American heavies weren't looking at range as their primary design feature, they were looking at durability, payload, survivability and other critical characteristics. This is why you see a B-17 making it back to the base with one engine working, or with it's tail shot off.

If someone doesn't like the fact that the US built tougher heavy bombers, they can simply adjust the durability or any other of a number of characteristics with the editor. They can even add 37mm cannons to their Zeros if they care more about shooting down enemy planes than playing a historic game.

[B]Consistantly attacking at unsafe altitudes against heavy AA concentrations can and should reap a consequence from the player.[/B]

In both losses to aircraft and morale, because nobody likes being sent on suicide missions for no obvious reason.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 194
Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/19/2003 12:55:05 AM   
CEDeaton


Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]You rabble rouser you ! ;)

The answer to your question is "yes" and "no"

Land based flak against large level bombers attacking at consistantly low altitudes is too ineffective. By this I dont mean that dozens of planes should go crashing down to earth when it is attempted, but rather, when attacking a strongly defended base, there should be a more tangible result of ignoring the defense than with what is usually seen. More 'hits' should result from such tactics as even a pop gun can contribute something if the bombers attack low enough, resulting in more damages, more kills but most importantly more disruption to the bombers and their resulting accuracy. If this were coupled with longer down times for damaged planes that come back after the mission i think we would find that balance of pros and cons that is missing and thus the need for more restrictive house rules would be lessened. So for example, i would expect Forts to remain very tough opponents, however even a Fort is going to have to spend some considerable down time if it's fuslage has been shot full of holes, some crew wounded and a bunch of parts/maintenance required to bring it back up to specs.

ship based flak is too effective all around (and so is early war USN for that matter) However a signifigant cavet again must be that, if the player employs ultra low level bombing attacks, there again should, like the land component still be a sig bonus to flak effects and resulting disruption assuming that the TF in question has signifigant AA to bring to play. Level bombers attacking at 100 - 1000 feet make big lumbering targets. Part of the same thing that makes torpedo bombers so vulnerable, they have to come in straight and low and that makes the gunners job easier. I expect Allied planes to be tougher but again even a tough plane shot full of holes is going to be unavail for some time in the future.

As Bergerud put it. Tactical bombers faced a serious threat from AA, less so medium bombers, and less again big strategic bombers however it was also pointed out that altitude was used as cushion to help enhance the increased DUR and redundant systems benefit of bigger bombers. the USAAF certainly did not go charging in from the get go at 6000 feet, during the daytime, regardless of enemy flak and fighter strength and just have at it.

Consistantly attacking at unsafe altitudes against heavy AA concentrations can and should reap a consequence from the player. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you're really onto something here realtive to the target altitude vs flak effectiveness issue. I've also noticed that ship-based flak seems a bit harsh at times but haven't noticed the same issue with land-based flak either.

Until we started this discussion and I started to give it some thought, I was given to assuming that the Jap LB Flak was just of a lighter calibre and more poorly coordinated than what was used in Europe and thus, less effective than what we've come to expect. On reflection, I suppose there could also be some other historical justifications for this effectiveness gap. Flak on the ground is still tasked with doing maximum damage to the enemy, but it has to protect an entire base so it is likely to be more spread out both as a means of providing said defense and as a defense against any potential flak suppression missions that might head their way.

SIDEBAR THOUGHT - Since we don't have Flak Supression missions, does anyone have any idea whether Ground, Port or Airbase Bombing missions tend to result in more hits on flak guns?

On a more human level, LB flak wouldn't generally have to worry too much about being the target of the attack itself. There are more important things in the area to hit (as witnesed by the fact the bad guys bothered to put the flak there in the first place). Ship based flak, on the other hand, is very often all about self-preservation, so the gunners are certainly much more motivated to get the kill since a miss might very well mean going to Davy Jones' Locker.

Add to this the fact that SB Flak is, by definition, more concentrated, which make it more easy to control and mass fires on incoming targets, and I'd think we probably should be seeing better results coming from a like number and calibre of guns based on a ship than if they were based on land. Which leads me to yet another thought that takes me back in the other direction on this equation
(Holy Boy! This is like free-association brainstorming!).

Wouldn't it stand to reason that a ship that is tied up in port might actually be more effective than when it's underway because it is a more stable firing platform? AND LB Flak should have that advantage factored in all the time. I just have no clue how much of a difference that would actually make.

It's making my head hurt just thinking about all this stuff. I'll tell ya' what. 2by3 can make whatever design decisions they darn well please and I'll nod my head, learn to deal with it, and play it anyway! Just give me a more user-friendly editor this time, with the ability to add additional plane types so I can do a 1937-38 scenario start date with accurate plane types, and I'll give them the wargamer's equivalent of a Papal Indulgence and forgive just about any sin I think is in the finished product. I think I've bought just about every game Grigsby was ever involved in creating because they are, and have always been IMO, the best thing going for strategic/operational level wargamers. I'm sure not going to stop now!

BTW, thanks for your well-considered and rational answers, Nik. THIS is exactly what I was hoping for when I joined the forum!

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 195
Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/19/2003 1:04:40 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[
BTW, thanks for your well-considered and rational answers, Nik. THIS is exactly what I was hoping for when I joined the forum! [/B][/QUOTE]

We testers aim to please ;)

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 196
- 7/19/2003 1:25:45 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert

Also, radar at the base should have an effect on flak because it would allow the base to be on alert, people at their battlestations, know the direction of the attack, etc.



Good point. This definately was a factor at Guadalcanal. I'd note too that the Japanese consistantly attacked at high altitude to avoid flak (and fighters)

quote:




My question is, what do you base the repair rates on, if you mess around with them? How would you determine how many planes can be repaired on a given day?


The simplest 'fix' is to simply lengthen repair rates across the board. Not to the extreme that was experienced in the B-17's (ack!!!! i said the no no word ;) ) in the early patch but simply lengthen it so that sustained and/or high intensity missions quickly result in the ratio of servicable to unservicable aircraft becoming more lopsided as time goes by, such that it would require a sig amount of time to address the balance (hence a need for rotation of bomber units! and periods of retooling)

Variables too add/consider:

1) aviation support points (technically already in the game)
2) base size (infrastructure
3) supply If in the pink or red, create a 'hit' on repair rate (also in the game already i believe)
4) airbase damage %

I dont like how airbases can be completely shut down (and how easy it can be acomplished of course) as its clearly goes against actual wartime experience. However a heavily suppressed base can and should suffer degredation to its ability to service/repair aircraft along with it's ability to put birds in the air dependant on damage % If an airbase is at 80% base damage (not runway) then it should have a much more difficult time repairing aircraft than an undamaged one. Compensation can perhaps be had in the form of extra aviation support points. This way it comes down to a question of how desperate is the player to maintain the base? The Japanese attempted to do so in the latter stages of the SoPac campaign but the gains vs the cost became more and more lopsided and they fell more and more behind the curve so that the result was that they had more planes unservicable than servicable. Eventually they withdrew those planes still airworthy and gave up the ghost (air units should not be trapped at 50% runway damage!!)

5) theater

Some geographical areas were harder on machines and men than others. The SoPac is the best example. Simply murder on both equipment as well as the men. Aircraft maintenance would be much easier in Japan or the West coast vs the Solomons.

quote:



Japanese planes like the Betty and Nell were designed with the idea that they would have to fight in the Pacific, hence over enormous distances. This is why they were basically giant fuel cans with a propellor which, when shot, would immediately burst into flames like a Hollywood style explosion. The American heavies weren't looking at range as their primary design feature, they were looking at durability, payload, survivability and other critical characteristics. This is why you see a B-17 making it back to the base with one engine working, or with it's tail shot off.



Actually the two planes were not quite that vulnerable at least not all the time. American pilots like Joe Foss did not find that the Betty "immediately" burst into flames or exploded on contact in most cases. But it is true that they were woefully underprotected compared to their american counterparts, the most immediate result when not shot down after the first pass was that the planes were heavily damaged and their crews wounded, with a resultant loss of speed and efficiency. If they escaped the result many times was a crack up on landing or more sig to this thread....they were very badly damaged on return with many unsuitable to fly again. Those able to fly again were unavail for some time after the raid crippling follow up actions. Non issue on the Japanese side though game wise....the vuln of these planes is evident in any situation in UV where the planes do not have heavy escort.

quote:


In both losses to aircraft and morale, because nobody likes being sent on suicide missions for no obvious reason. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed, and the human component is represented by the Morale hit in the game if you push too hard too often. But right now there's no equivilent to pushing your equipment too hard too fast. I dont want to see more "op losses" because they are often too high already but worst of all, take away too many pilots with the planes. There was always in the SoPac for both sides, a greater supply of pilots vs planes, so the best solution is to increase the unservicability of hard used/hit planes leaving them grounded.

This was essentially the doctorine that evolved for the US late campaign, go after the planes on the ground, take em out. Wewak was the one of the best examples of that.

On the issue of hitting flak and engineers on the ground. Definate hell yes......way to easy to kill grunts and their guns in general as it is. Rabaul never stopped being a hornet's nest of flak guns and actually only got stronger as the campaign against it intensified.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 197
Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/19/2003 1:38:04 AM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[B]
SIDEBAR THOUGHT - Since we don't have Flak Supression missions, does anyone have any idea whether Ground, Port or Airbase Bombing missions tend to result in more hits on flak guns? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Craig,
Well, I can take a stab at this one. Speaking strictly from my own experience I've found that Airbase bombings seem to result in more hits on "guns" (I just assume those are probably flak guns, but have no way of knowing).
You'd think that Ground bombing would have more of an effect on guns, but I haven't seen this.

I also have to say that this (long, drawn-out, rotten-corpse of a dead horse) debate about B-17s is beyond me. I always play Allies (against AI, and now PBEM) and have seen nothing to suggest that it is anything more than it was in reality. A tough heavy bomber capable of absorbing lots of damage and inflicting same on ground targets but not naval targets. My B-17s very rarely get hits on naval units (I don't even use them for this after 42) but do well against ground targets. They also seem to hold up pretty well against zeros. If I send them in too low over heavy AA targets (like Rabaul), I pay the price. What is the debate about??? On second thought, NEVERMIND.

BTW: There seem to be a lot of Marines on the forum (I was in 85-91). There should be some interesting posts on November 10th. :D

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 198
Re: Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/19/2003 3:06:46 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick
[B]Hi Craig,
Well, I can take a stab at this one. Speaking strictly from my own experience I've found that Airbase bombings seem to result in more hits on "guns" (I just assume those are probably flak guns, but have no way of knowing).
You'd think that Ground bombing would have more of an effect on guns, but I haven't seen this.

I also have to say that this (long, drawn-out, rotten-corpse of a dead horse) debate about B-17s is beyond me. I always play Allies (against AI, and now PBEM) and have seen nothing to suggest that it is anything more than it was in reality. A tough heavy bomber capable of absorbing lots of damage and inflicting same on ground targets but not naval targets. My B-17s very rarely get hits on naval units (I don't even use them for this after 42) but do well against ground targets. They also seem to hold up pretty well against zeros. If I send them in too low over heavy AA targets (like Rabaul), I pay the price. What is the debate about??? On second thought, NEVERMIND.

BTW: There seem to be a lot of Marines on the forum (I was in 85-91). There should be some interesting posts on November 10th. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Obviously you didnt bother to look at the AAR posted above.
That is what the thread was originally about.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 199
- 7/19/2003 3:08:01 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Good point. This definately was a factor at Guadalcanal. I'd note too that the Japanese consistantly attacked at high altitude to avoid flak (and fighters)



The simplest 'fix' is to simply lengthen repair rates across the board. Not to the extreme that was experienced in the B-17's (ack!!!! i said the no no word ;) ) in the early patch but simply lengthen it so that sustained and/or high intensity missions quickly result in the ratio of servicable to unservicable aircraft becoming more lopsided as time goes by, such that it would require a sig amount of time to address the balance (hence a need for rotation of bomber units! and periods of retooling)

Variables too add/consider:

1) aviation support points (technically already in the game)
2) base size (infrastructure
3) supply If in the pink or red, create a 'hit' on repair rate (also in the game already i believe)
4) airbase damage %

I dont like how airbases can be completely shut down (and how easy it can be acomplished of course) as its clearly goes against actual wartime experience. However a heavily suppressed base can and should suffer degredation to its ability to service/repair aircraft along with it's ability to put birds in the air dependant on damage % If an airbase is at 80% base damage (not runway) then it should have a much more difficult time repairing aircraft than an undamaged one. Compensation can perhaps be had in the form of extra aviation support points. This way it comes down to a question of how desperate is the player to maintain the base? The Japanese attempted to do so in the latter stages of the SoPac campaign but the gains vs the cost became more and more lopsided and they fell more and more behind the curve so that the result was that they had more planes unservicable than servicable. Eventually they withdrew those planes still airworthy and gave up the ghost (air units should not be trapped at 50% runway damage!!)

5) theater

Some geographical areas were harder on machines and men than others. The SoPac is the best example. Simply murder on both equipment as well as the men. Aircraft maintenance would be much easier in Japan or the West coast vs the Solomons.



Actually the two planes were not quite that vulnerable at least not all the time. American pilots like Joe Foss did not find that the Betty "immediately" burst into flames or exploded on contact in most cases. But it is true that they were woefully underprotected compared to their american counterparts, the most immediate result when not shot down after the first pass was that the planes were heavily damaged and their crews wounded, with a resultant loss of speed and efficiency. If they escaped the result many times was a crack up on landing or more sig to this thread....they were very badly damaged on return with many unsuitable to fly again. Those able to fly again were unavail for some time after the raid crippling follow up actions. Non issue on the Japanese side though game wise....the vuln of these planes is evident in any situation in UV where the planes do not have heavy escort.



Agreed, and the human component is represented by the Morale hit in the game if you push too hard too often. But right now there's no equivilent to pushing your equipment too hard too fast. I dont want to see more "op losses" because they are often too high already but worst of all, take away too many pilots with the planes. There was always in the SoPac for both sides, a greater supply of pilots vs planes, so the best solution is to increase the unservicability of hard used/hit planes leaving them grounded.

This was essentially the doctorine that evolved for the US late campaign, go after the planes on the ground, take em out. Wewak was the one of the best examples of that.

On the issue of hitting flak and engineers on the ground. Definate hell yes......way to easy to kill grunts and their guns in general as it is. Rabaul never stopped being a hornet's nest of flak guns and actually only got stronger as the campaign against it intensified. [/B][/QUOTE]

But...this will do nothing at all about the B-17 anti-shipping issue.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 200
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/19/2003 3:18:21 AM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Obviously you didnt bother to look at the AAR posted above.
That is what the thread was originally about. [/B][/QUOTE]

"I have been attacked! I will respond when attacked!" :D

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 201
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? - 7/19/2003 3:23:14 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick
[B]"I have been attacked! I will respond when attacked!" :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually no, you attacked ME, and yes I did respond.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 202
- 7/19/2003 3:26:50 AM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Hi Chiteng,

You might want to look up "irony" in the dictionary. No, it's not what you do to your clothes before going to high school in the morning. :p

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 203
- 7/19/2003 4:02:01 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B] I dont like how airbases can be completely shut down (and how easy it can be acomplished of course) as its clearly goes against actual wartime experience. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree completely. It took nothing more than a bunch of guys with shovels a couple hours during the night to patch the holes in most dirt strips that were found in this theater. If you have one of the EABs on site, it really should be a no-sweat operation. I think a decent (3+) sized base should only be shut by a massive bombardment (ship and air). Otherwise, the runways should bounce back like nobody's business. I know the Seabees often kept piles of crushed coral and Marsten matting on hand for these occasions. Simply bulldoze the coral into the hole and put the matting on top. Voila, fixed it!

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 204
- 7/19/2003 4:11:13 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick
[B]Hi Chiteng,

You might want to look up "irony" in the dictionary. No, it's not what you do to your clothes before going to high school in the morning. :p [/B][/QUOTE]

As you might look up courtesy =)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 205
- 7/19/2003 4:21:32 AM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Webster's New World College Dictionary:

CURTSY (kurt'see) n., a gesture of greeting, respect, etc. made by girls and women and characterized by a bending of the knees and a slight lowering of the body. :p

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 206
- 7/19/2003 4:24:56 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick
[B]Webster's New World College Dictionary:

CURTSY (kurt'see) n., a gesture of greeting, respect, etc. made by girls and women and characterized by a bending of the knees and a slight lowering of the body. :p [/B][/QUOTE]

What a pity that isnt the word I mentioned =)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 207
Grow up will ya! - 7/19/2003 4:35:12 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
You know how some threads have some worth and others should just completely be gutted ... well, this one has really now hit that point.


(a) If you are going to "quote" people, please limit the "quote" to some point, don't use the darn quote all button.

(b) If your answer does not exceed or at least match the "quote" in length, it probably wasn't required unless you are answering specific questions.

This is a forum for the enjoyment of Uncommon Valor. If you are posting dictionary listing of words, you might care to look up "STUPID" and reflect on your posts and the rest of us have to suffer reading through it to see if anything of value might be there. Thats why most of us come here, to learn and help.

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 208
- 7/19/2003 4:42:42 AM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Hi Mr Frag,

Just having a little fun with Chitty. No need to get all hot under the collar! In case you hadn't noticed, this thread devolved to the point of self-parody long ago.

I agree that the other threads are for info and helping our fellow gamers....but this one???? Please. Just have fun man! ;)

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 209
Re: Grow up will ya! - 7/19/2003 4:44:06 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]You know how some threads have some worth and others should just completely be gutted ... well, this one has really now hit that point.


(a) If you are going to "quote" people, please limit the "quote" to some point, don't use the darn quote all button.

(b) If your answer does not exceed or at least match the "quote" in length, it probably wasn't required unless you are answering specific questions.

This is a forum for the enjoyment of Uncommon Valor. If you are posting dictionary listing of words, you might care to look up "STUPID" and reflect on your posts and the rest of us have to suffer reading through it to see if anything of value might be there. Thats why most of us come here, to learn and help. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well Mr. Frag, I would be perfectly happy to see the thread vanish.
It served its purpose three months ago.
As for quoting, I am a lazy man =) If I have no real interest
I am not going to edit.

I posted my attempt to 'help' and I backed it up with posted AAR.
What you now see is unending bile from people that dont actually care about the issue raised. They just want to flame ME.
That isnt something I control =)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641