I give up!

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by dpstafford

We have to get to a playable 2.30 or back to 2.0 in a big hurry, or UV may die on the vine. And that would be a real shame.

Well, I am going back to 2.0. But I don't think that UV will die on the vine as a result. Rather an apocolyptic statement don't you think?

Give the guys a break. Sh!t happens. The game is only getting better with just a few hiccups along the way.

But I do have to wonder why the combat was made more bloody. I didn't see anyone posting on this forum that there was anything wrong with the way it was. Did I miss something?

[Yamamoto]

I like intense air-to-air combat. Now if the bombers are too tough then that is a separate issue that should be looked at (I haven’t seen it on my machine). Let’s not try and solve that problem (if it exists) by decreasing the intensity of ALL air-to-air combat. For the Japanese air-to-air combat is critical to protecting their carriers since their flak protection is not as intense as what the allies can put up.

Yamamoto

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
But I do have to wonder why the combat was made more bloody. I didn't see anyone posting on this forum that there was anything wrong with the way it was. Did I miss something?

If there was I missed it too. That's why I concluded that it was an unintended change. Something that snuck in when they put in all the new air-to-air combat messages.

As for the game dying, uh, I was in six PBEM's. Since the problems with 2.10/2.11, three of my games have stopped completely or gone on hold. I would certainly not start a new one on the current patch. And who could in good faith recommend a game with the necessary caveat that you NOT load all the patches.....????

[Pawlock]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cap_and_gown
But I do have to wonder why the combat was made more bloody. I didn't see anyone posting on this forum that there was anything wrong with the way it was. Did I miss something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If there was I missed it too. That's why I concluded that it was an unintended change. Something that snuck in when they put in all the new air-to-air combat messages.

As for the game dying, uh, I was in six PBEM's. Since the problems with 2.10/2.11, three of my games have stopped completely or gone on hold. I would certainly not start a new one on the current patch. And who could in good faith recommend a game with the necessary caveat that you NOT load all the patches.....????


__________________
"Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." --John Stuart Mill



Unfortunatly, there was, what I like to call a vocal minority were complaining at the poor performance of the zeroes in one respect or another and the fact that flak was causing more kills than they would expect.

To my mind, apart from the "Real resident bugs" and perhaps the minewarefare , version 2.0 was nye on perfect.

In fact If I remember correctly, no actual modelling of the air combat (apart from more info displayed) system was done in V2.0, yet a plethora of complaints arose to do with air combat post 2.0. Take that as you will, but to me it smacks of a way to pass off bad tactics as bugs in order to justify thier loss.

To my mind, you can tweak to much sometimes, and IMHO when you have something that is near perfect anyway, the only way you can go is down!!!

Anyway, Ihave avoided upgrading to 2,1 and beyond, and now Im glad, and to be honest cant see me upgrading in the near future neither.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Pawlock
To my mind, apart from the "Real resident bugs" and perhaps the minewarefare , version 2.0 was nye on perfect.

2.0 air combat was broken bery badly. Almost no losses were occuring and it made escorting bombers or flying cap almost pointless. 1.4 air-to-air combat was better because some planes actually got shot down.

The combat intensity in 2.11 is perfect except for the fact that bombers seem to be too good fighter-killers on some people's machines. I could definately recommend the 2.11 upgrade to anyone who owns UV.

Yamamoto

PS. Flak WAS way too tough on DB and TB is previous (pre 2.10) versions. If you think differently you must not play as the Japanese.

[Diealtekoenig]

I started a new game "Hard Road Ahead" under 2.11. I set FOW off. I did play as the IJN if that makes any difference. I sent all the bombers at Rabual against Port Moresby for 5 consecutive turns which resulted (due to weather) in actual attacks against PM 3 times.

The bombers were set to 20,000 ft and the escorting Ftrs to 21,000 (which I generally do as the IJN to gain an advantage vs those slow climbing Allied fighters). This latter may have effected things.

For the 3 engagements I got:

Japanese:
41 Fighters present, 6 Destroyed, 3 Damaged
42 Bombers - 4 and 8
Allied
47 Fighters - 8 and 17

Japanese
13 F, 0 - 0 (none destroyed or damaged)
34 B 8 - 2
Allied
20 F 2-5

Japanese
3F, 0-0
3B, 2-0
Allied 26F, 0-0

Totals (Destroyed as a percent of engaged)
Japan
Fighter 10.5%
Bombers 17.7%
Allied
Fighters 10.7%

I may be making things a little less bloody by attacking at such high altitude. I do note that with 26 fighters vs 3 Fighters and 3 bombers in that last battle the 26 allied fighters only got 2 kills, no damaged and didn't take any losses. That range of results (for all of the battles together) seems with in reason to me.

[David Heath]

Hi Guys

Let me say I am watching this forum. We did get alot of people saying the Air to Air was bloodless and we saw it ourself. The play balance is there and we will make changes if we need to.

We don't just change things for the fun of it. Lets get some other gamers feedback with some results to back them and we see what we have.

Let me say this now DO NOT PLAY v2.10 there is a major bug with the pilots and combat. Either play v2.0 and deal with the pilot issues and bloodless air battle or play v2.11 and give us your feedback.

PS: If you are playing a few PBEM and keep both EXE with shortcuts on your PC and play with the older version untul your ready. This give you a chance to play the new version and keep your current game untouch unit both you and opponents are ready to move forward.




David

[SoulBlazer]

For the record, I agree with everything that Nik said and the rest of you need to read that....twice! I'm playing three PBEM games right now that were started in 1.4 (two allied, one Japanese) and have NEVER seen those losses. Everything plays allright to me. If you want to complain, offer evidence from several different games and a suggestion to Matrix. They've done more then enough for us.

(getting off soapbox)

[mjk428]

Hello,

I'd like to put forth my experiences with 2.11 in order to help Matrix get things just right and not overreact.

I gave up on UV in June because there were some aspects I just didn't like. I decided to give it another shot when I saw that the 2.0 patch was released and have been playing it for about a week now.

Here are some numbers from my current game, which was started with version 2.10 and is now at 2.11. I'm playing the US vs the AI. So far it's been an air war over PM for the most part. Lunga is too strong to invade but I've just taken back Gilli Gilli at the cost of many F4F's (& pilots) that were providing LRCAP over the transports.


Scenario 17 - 10/12/42

Aircraft Losses -

Zero-2 - 377
Zero-3 - 134
Val - 48
Kate - 59
Nell - 52
Betty - 142

F4F-4 - 127
SBD - 10
TBD - 1
TBF - 1
P-400 - 53
P-39 - 122
Kittyhawk - 94
Warhawk - 59
P-39 - 22
Hudson - 28
B25 - 9
B26 - 13
B17 - 3
B24 - 2

Sorties - US 43k IJ 59k
Air to Air Losses - US 458 IJ 473
On Field Losses - US 33 IJ 64
Flak Losses - US 46 IJ 109
Operational Losses - US 106 IJ 256

Total US Bomber Kills = 8

I understand how some players may feel that the B-17 is overpowered but they are also lacking replacements and are slow to repair. They may get very good results for a few days but I don't see how that would be sustainable in a campaign.

My opinion of UV is now much higher thanks to the patches. I may still have a few quibbles but overall it's now an excellent Pacific War game.

It would be my suggestion that whatever changes are made now to combat intensity should be adjustable. There is no change that will make everyone happy so I hope Matrix doesn't even try. The only changes Matrix should make should be to values on individual units that are not considered accurate. The overall feel of combat is very good now in my experience.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
For the record, I agree with everything that Nik said and the rest of you need to read that....twice! ... Everything plays allright to me.

Maybe you should also reread what Nik said, because he didn't say that "everything plays allright". To quote his post:

The one area i do agree with completely, enough to post my own thread on the subject, was on the subject of bomber fire vs fighters....particularily B-17. I do feel bomber vs fighter in general is too accurate.

It sounds to me like he pretty much agrees with my post earlier in this thread.

- David

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by David Heath
Hi Guys

Let me say I am watching this forum. We did get alot of people saying the Air to Air was bloodless and we saw it ourself. The play balance is there and we will make changes if we need to.

We don't just change things for the fun of it. Lets get some other gamers feedback with some results to back them and we see what we have.

Let me say this now DO NOT PLAY v2.10 there is a major bug with the pilots and combat. Either play v2.0 and deal with the pilot issues and bloodless air battle or play v2.11 and give us your feedback.

PS: If you are playing a few PBEM and keep both EXE with shortcuts on your PC and play with the older version untul your ready. This give you a chance to play the new version and keep your current game untouch unit both you and opponents are ready to move forward.




David

Yep, and i was one of them......conditionally of course. I never felt that A6M's or F4F's etc were not getting their due etc etc or any of that kind of thing. It was more in the form of certain consistant combat situations, such as the small penny packet bomber raids, even against strong CAP elements

I saw it often too with large raids, where the defenders had radar to forwarn and "scramble" the defence. A lack of agressiveness, even in low fatique situations

Version 1.4 was 'mostly' ok though the above two situations continued to crop up. I lived with it because there were more important issues i was focusing on + the shadow boxing seemed to par down some with that patch vs 1.0 and .2

2.0 though brought the shadow boxing to the forfront. I specifically mentioned this in one thread. Fighters hardly ever seemed to touch the bombers (and by touch, i mean even just "damage" them lightly) even under the most favorable circumstances and fighter vs fighter to a degree as well. Further, you could virtually assure your raid would not get beat up too bad or hardly at all if there was at least a minimal escort because with what little combat occured after all the shadow boxing was soaked up by escorts.

I didn't find this all bad mind you, but it did frustrate me because there are definately times when your airpower will have teeth, (and so will the enemies) and the level of anemic-ness of 2.0 was simply unacceptible to me.

I have found 2.11 to be very satisfying. If you fight hard, for too long a consistant period, your gonna bleed. Penny packet raids are no longer immune (Rufe's actually do something now...they were able to damage two Hudsons during a typical 6 plane raid at Rabaul) Zero's damage B-17's now and even knock one down occasionally. And planes inappropriate for high preformance combat like the trainer-converted to fighter bomber Wirraways suffer heavily *if the player pits them in unfavorable situations*

As for the complaints vis-a-vis bomber defensive fire. Abandoning 2.11 wont fix that problem. Bomber defensive fire is unchanged from 2.0 to 2.11 You'll see less kills, but only because both air forces will be doing more acrobatics and less shooting.

It is my belief that bomber defensive fire needs addressing, but i'm not going to condemn the patch, nor accuse Matrix of fixing something that wasn't broke, when so much depends on how the players choose to fight their battles. The air model remains flexible IMO.....I never saw the UBER losses, and not every battle i witness results in heavy casualties. I think Diealtekoenig's results are a good indicator....mine are similar as well though i've had some brutal battles too (nothing like the Uber examples though) Just like with AA, if you attack low, expect a furball. Attacking higher should reduce casaulties unless the radar roll and the Alt settings of the Allied player muck things up. The game accounts for exeptions as well as patterns

I also keep firmly in mind that with FOW on...i cant fully know just how bloody things really are. Real life claims were grossly exagerated, sometimes that happens in UV too. I once saw 5 or 6 Tainen Zero's get allegedly flamed by 39's, only to find that only one went down.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by mjk428
I understand how some players may feel that the B-17 is overpowered but they are also lacking replacements and are slow to repair.

That's a different topic IMO. I personally agree that the survivability, repair rates, replacement rates and bombing effectiveness of the big level bombers are all pretty good at this point. My only current problem with 2.11 is with the offensive power of the defensive guns on bombers. Specifically, the number of Zeros that Allied level bombers in particular are able to shoot down at such times as these types come in contact with one another.

I won't even suggest that heavily armed level bombers couldn't potentially have damaged or even shot down numerous enemy fighters in real life, if given unrealistically optimal circumstances in which to do so. It's only this: unless the Zeros are flown by totally incompetent pilots, they shouldn't be consistently handing heavily armed level bombers the opportunity to shoot down so many of their number. This isn't a situation where the bombers are going to be chasing down the Zeros and killing them, after all ... the initiative and decision to engage the enemy in such a matchup clearly lies with the Zeros, so they should be perfectly capable of keeping themselves from getting needlessly killed in matchups where they are clearly not going to be very successful (and the Japanese knew very well during the war that they weren't having much luck in bringing down B-17s, as others have posted proof of in the past). After all, bomber formations in UV have the ability to turn back when they are faced with mounting losses, even though they lack the advantages of speed or maneuverability over their attackers. Shouldn't fighters on CAP, who do have such advantages over the bombers, have at least the same opportunity to not waste themselves needlessly?

Now someone may respond to the effect of "if you choose to use non-historical tactics and expose Zeros to bombers, you should expect non-historical results". But such statements presume a level of micromanagement that does not exist in this game. It has been said many times that UV places the player in the position of an overall commander, and that you have to trust your units' individual commanders to handle (or mishandle) their duties. Well, currently the only way to prevent Zeros from sacrificing themselves to level bombers is for the JPN side to not fly CAP at all if there are level bombers within range (which is most of the time), or for the Allied player to never set level bombers to attack fleets or bases (since Zeros can fly CAP over either one). Does anyone think those are appropriate tactical alternatives? I would hope not!

If there were a set of "doctrine" options, where the player or the AI could set some basic "standing orders" as to what sort of tactics his units of various types could employ (and what sort of targets they should employ them against), that would allow the commander to do something about preventing this type of wasteful attack without requiring any other balance changes. However, it would likely increase the amount of control over individual unit tactics the player has to a level that is unreasonable for this type of game. (Edit: or maybe not. Actually, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it.)

- David

[mjk428]

DSandberg -

I understand and agree. I'm just concerned that the cure might be worse than the disease. The B17 may be too strong when it comes to shooting down CAP but I wouldn't want a change made to fix it unless it only addresses that aspect.

Your point that the CAP wouldn't sacrifice itself is a good one but can this be addressed without "declawing" the combat?

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by mjk428
Your point that the CAP wouldn't sacrifice itself is a good one but can this be addressed without "declawing" the combat?

I believe it potentially could be, although of course only Matrix and 2by3 know the details of their air combat implementation well enough to say for sure. One idea that pops to my mind is an "initiative" determination that calculates how successful a withdrawal of either side in an air combat will be if the matchup or odds is not in their favor. Some examples:

Fighters vs. fighter of equal speeds would have moderate "initiative" values for both sides, as getting out of a fight with someone that can at least keep pace with you is somewhat problematic.

Fast fighters should be able to withdraw relatively painlessly from a combat vs. slower fighters, and especially vs. bombers, so they would have a high "initiative" value.

Conversely, slower fighters faced with faster fighters, and especially bombers facing fighters, would have low "initiative" values, since it is far more difficult for them to escape. Currently bombers that elect to "turn back" from their bombing runs still suffer additional losses as they attempt to egress the combat area, and this is appropriate and reflective of a low "initiative" value vs. the CAP that is harrying them.

It's just one idea, anyway ...

(Edit: I just saw in another thread that it has been proposed to simply decrease the accuracy of the defensive guns on all bombers by 50%. I'll allow that this might have approximately the desired effect as well, although it would not directly address the core of the problem as would my suggestion. Conversely, I fully realize that my suggestion might be more difficult to implement (being an actual code change/addition), and could also have additional unanticipated side effects that would require more extensive play-testing.)

- David

[Rob Brennan UK]

having played v the AI from beginning may 42. i feel like i'm on the defensive (as japs) i just had 5 CV's (hiryu,kaga,agaki,soryu,junyo) all lose ALL thier vals.. then all thier kates and zeros .. in attacks against a 3 cv american taskforce .. thier 54 f4f killed all planes in every raid ! and i killed almost nil in response ! .. help .. japs are doomed in v 2.1 this is kust an extreme case of the attacks on PM ( bomber nightmare) even at 20000 ft .. where the p39 is supposedly useless..

please matrix/david .. us japs are suffering

[DoomedMantis]

Originally posted by BK6583
Is there a bias for one side or the other? Just last night (much to my unexpected glee) my IJN opponent sent a bomber attack to PM of about 50-60 Nells. PM for me at this stage has just fatigued, pitiful fighter remnents (I must have lost 85 P39's) which I have been keeping on CAP over PM since the other alternative is to be bombed into oblivion on the ground (my my, IJN naval bombardment and air bombardment from the first attack just knocked the socks off my PM airfield). At any rate (my neighbor plays hot seat with me) I heard him scream "what happened to my Zero escorts?" (apparently Lae based Zeros never 'picked up' the Nells from Rabaul) as my pitiful PM fighters shredded his unprotected Nells to the tune of about 20 destroyed and 25 damaged. We're playing 2.11. What super bombers are we talking about here?

It seems to be only the allied bombers. I have yet to see any IJN bomber crew getting more than one or on rare occasions two kills, but I regularly see Allied bomber crews with Aces

[zed]

Originally posted by DSandberg
Outside of this particular aircraft matchup, I'm pretty pleased with the air combat results on both sides in v2.11. It's bloodier than before to be sure, but the current level of bloodiness seems to be a close match for the types of results I read about in the history books.

I agree. Fatigue plays a big role as well. I am rereading Samurai. Even the best japanese pilots were shot down attacking b-17s. I hope all patches and changes are done. Lets turn out attention to WITP.

[U2]

Originally posted by zed


Lets turn out attention to WITP.

I could not agree more:)

Dan

[Toro]

Originally posted by zed
Fatigue plays a big role as well... Lets turn out attention to WITP.

I agree with both these. I believe it was David that mentioned how fatigue had a tremendous impact on results. For one, before his comment, I had a tendency to fly full sorties every day until fat hit 35-40. Since then, I've scaled back my missions to ensure fat is much lower.

Maybe we should look at it this way: Fatigue for pilots might equate to sys damage for ships. Would we be sailing ships with 35-40 sys damage? Even 20?

Just my 2 cents. Since I've scaled back sorties, I've seen a dramatic decrease in loses per mission, odd occasions excepted.

<edit> I have seen odd items with B-17s, though, as have others. My fighters getting nailed by them, but rarely giving in return.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Rob Brennan UK
having played v the AI from beginning may 42. i feel like i'm on the defensive (as japs) i just had 5 CV's (hiryu,kaga,agaki,soryu,junyo) all lose ALL thier vals.. then all thier kates and zeros .. in attacks against a 3 cv american taskforce .. thier 54 f4f killed all planes in every raid ! and i killed almost nil in response ! .. help .. japs are doomed in v 2.1 this is kust an extreme case of the attacks on PM ( bomber nightmare) even at 20000 ft .. where the p39 is supposedly useless..

please matrix/david .. us japs are suffering

If this was 2.1, as you say, upgrade to 2.11 and see how it is. It seems to be fine on my computer.

Yamamoto